Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 23 Aug 2001 12:41:09 -0700 | From | Tom Rini <> | Subject | Re: Will 2.6 require Python for any configuration ? (CML2) |
| |
On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 09:26:33PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org> writes: > > Tom> On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 10:36:20AM -0500, Bob Glamm wrote: > Tom> And the same set of replies. Doing it in !python would be much > Tom> harder than it sounds. But people have stepped up and said > Tom> they'd do it in C. So python is only needed for xconfig. And > Tom> that's just trading tcl for python. The other thing is, the > Tom> python cml2 tools are supposed to eliminate a bunch of other > Tom> tools and remove some of the dependancies. > > Most of these tools were written in bash or C ... going the python way > is a major loss.
Or perl.
> >> Why isn't ncurses a pain? For the same reason ncurses wasn't a > >> pain when 'make menuconfig' (lxdialog) was introduced (yes, I did > >> many a 'make config'): curses/ncurses was already on just about > >> every system running Linux - it was built into the text editor. > > Tom> And many a new system has python. > > It still doesn't solve the situation of people building embedded > systems who do only have a bare minimum on their systems. Or people > who are bringing up systems who do not have network/floppy available > and do not want to move their disks between systems constantly in > order to configure their kernels. I have brought this point up > several times to the CML2 developer and every time I received the > utterly useless answer saying I should move my source to another box, > configure it there and move it back to the devel box.
You've said this before. :) Just how small of an 'embedded' system are you talking about? I know of people who do compile a kernel now and again on a 'small' system, for fun. On a larger (cPCI) system, I don't see your point. If you can somehow transport the 21mb[1] bzip2 kernel source to your system, you can transport python. If you're porting to a brand new arch, there's still good tests before you have shlib support (You've mentioned that before too I think).
> >> It does surprise me that Linus would actually allow this to happen. > >> It's been my impression that he favors a clean, elegant solution. > >> Maybe it's just me, but adding a dependency solely for the sake of > >> building the kernel doesn't strike me as very clean or elegant. > > Tom> Because the python solution happened to fix all of the problems. > > And introduces new problems that so far haven't been addressed.
Which is what? The dependancy on python2?
> The solution seems to be that someone implements CML2 in C, once that > happens we are talking something completely different.
As long as it does everything the current version does and is just as fast I don't think there'll be much of an argument for either. Hell, probably both for a while...
-- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ - 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/
|  |