[stali] base tools and build system (Was [dev]Shell style guide)

From: Evan Gates <evan.gates_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 07:56:17 -0700

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Anselm R Garbe <garbeam_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> Nevertheless, after an excursion to sh for several years, I'm kind of
> favouring 9base/rc again, after all. For stali I now tend to adopt rc
> as primary scripting language for the target system as well. For the
> build host environment I would rather stick to sh+make instead of
> rc+mk. We have to live with the fact that a build host environment is
> poisoned with crap bloat to hell anyways.

Since stali already provides a toolchain we could provide statically
linked rc+mk instead of requiring GNU make to be installed. (As an
aside I noticed the toolchain is dynamically linked. Is it even
possible to statically link gcc/binutils? I've never tried...)

> When I started 9base and Uriel started werc and other rc-based stuff,
> we concluded that one cannot really write portable scripts with sh.
> You have to rely on a defined userland. The Plan 9 derived userland
> offers this definition. I agree that sbase goes into a similar
> direction, but the danger remains when using sh, that some stuff will
> end up in pretty mixed environments.

You also recently said

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:24 AM, Anselm R Garbe <garbeam_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> [...] I already mentioned my plan to
> introduce 9base, as I believe it is superior to posux rewrites for
> several reasons ;)

It seems to me that whichever is used we will have a defined userland.
Being in complete control of what goes into stali means you can safely
rely on specific implementations. In that case what are your reasons
for preferring 9base? (I don't care one way or the other, I'm just
curious.)

-emg
Received on Thu Sep 15 2016 - 16:56:17 CEST