Re: lib9 vs lib9

>> Just how different from Inferno's lib9 is the plan9-port's lib9?
>> Could they be combined, or the plan9-port's used instead with just
>> some tweaking to compile under the Inferno environment?  If they're
>> radically different, shouldn't we differentiate between them with
>> names like lib9 and 9libc or lib9c or something?
>
>Once upon a time the one in the ports tree was called lib9c.
>Calling it 9libc just buggers up the Unix linker.

I thought about the linker thing the second after I sent the e-mail.

>I guess I just don't see what the big deal is.  They're different
>and they live in different places, so the risk of confusing the two
>seems small.

The big deal is that I thought about a project in which one could build most of the Plan9 kernel/source or
Inferno kernel/source from the same tree, by way of something along the lines of "mk plan9" or "mk
inferno"... from a non-Plan9 system, eg, any os/cpu combination supported by the Inferno
environment...  The advantage being simple porting between the two.  Having a (more) unified lib9 would
solve a gob of headaches I've already run up against.