Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 5 Dec 1996 11:38:09 -0500 (EST) | From | "Adam D. Bradley" <> | Subject | Re: 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 2.7.2.1 (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 space.
Anyway, we killed that debate too recently...plz don't fire it up again...
Adam -- 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 bradley@cs.unca.edu http://www.cs.unca.edu/~bradley <><
|  |