[lkml]   [2001]   [Aug]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 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 <> 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)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:58    [W:0.224 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site