[lkml]   [1996]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: source dependencies cleanup? (fwd)

> Oh, one other things, while I'm thinking of it. I know this was brought up
> quite some time ago (I think it was as far back as 1.1.x) but I don't
> remember the outcome.
> The question is: is there any GOOD reason why the Configure program is
> still written as a bash script? I'm a big fan of Perl myself, and I'd say
> it's reasonable to expect anyone who is configuring and compiling their
> own kernel to have Perl installed. Obviously we wouldn't want to depend on
> my particular Perl _libraries_ being installed, just the bare necessities.

Actually, this same question buzzed around for a while a month or so ago,
about whether we should require perl to do mkdep. As I recall, the answer
was a resounding "maybe", ie, go ahead and write a Perl script to do it,
but it's not going to replace scripts that only require "universal"
utilities (ie bash, gcc (is that universal yet??? ;-), etc).

Of course, this point may bear making: if a bleeding-edge kernel hacker
may be required to momentarily suck up 40MB (40 * 2^20 bytes) or so of
disk space to compile+install the latest binutils, then perhaps installing
perl isn't such a hurculean thing to demand either...? But then, there's
the flip-side argument: we constantly use binutils. Installing perl for
one or two utilities (mkdep and configure) that represent such a small
percentage of compile/build time/power could be a frivolous waste of disk

Anyway, we killed that debate too recently...plz don't fire it up again...

He feeds on ashes; a deluded mind has led him Adam Bradley, UNCA Senior
astray, and he cannot deliver himself or say, Computer Science
"Is there not a lie in my right hand?" Isaiah 44:20 <><

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:38    [W:0.116 / U:5.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site