lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Aug]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Will 2.6 require Python for any configuration ? (CML2)
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 02:44:06PM -0400, Disconnect wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Daniel Phillips did have cause to say:
> > Take a close look at the word "just" in that sentence. Kernel configuration
> > is not a trivial task at all and it gets less trivial every time Linux gets
> > more general.
>
> I don't disagree. But the point isn't how trivial or non-trivial the task
> of configuring the kernel is, the point is for a lot of people it is the
> ONLY task that they will use python for. And everyone who builds a kernel
> will have gcc, so thats the 'ideal' dependency. Second and third most
> likely, a C++ compiler or perl (depending on what you figure the
> installbase of each one is). Forth, some form of java runtime. And after
> that is python. (I'm not advocating using any of the above for kernel
> configuration. But they are more likely to already be installed than
> python is.)
>
> What this says is that either linux sources are going to grow (and the
> build process get more complex) by whatever the size of the python
> interpreter is, OR some method will be used that doesn't require a
> separate interpreter.
>
> This is also in agreement with his statement about reducing the dependence
> on external tools, whereas requiring everyone to install python does not.
> It could either be read as using straight gcc C -or- as including all the
> external tools in buildable form. I'm betting on the former.

Look, either you implement CML2 in C (it can be done; but I'd wager it
isn't easy), or you pay someone else to do it, _or_ you stop complaining.
Simple as that. If you really can't stand having Python on your machine
(I'll bet it's a perl vs python religious thing... I have both installed),
there's always $EDITOR + .config for you to use. I promise that you won't
have to install any extra libraries/compilers/whatever to use that one.

Read the archives damn it, it's not the first time this kind of
arguing takes place here.

I'll give you another option:

make do with the current set of tools (with all of its errors and
short-comings, which are _numerous_) and maintain a forward-compatible
version.


/David
_ _
// David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:58    [W:0.075 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site