From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sam Ravnborg Subject: Re: cross-compiling alternatives (was Re: [PATCH 0/1] Embedded Maintainer(s)...) Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 19:23:11 +0200 Message-ID: <20080612172311.GA15298@uranus.ravnborg.org> References: <1209577322.25560.402.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <200806102235.09598.rob@landley.net> <484F66F8.4020409@snapgear.com> <200806111941.51221.rob@landley.net> <48513F5A.6010008@am.sony.com> <1213285831.26255.152.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20080612160845.GB9327@linux-sh.org> <48514E9A.3080901@billgatliff.com> <20080612163155.GC9327@linux-sh.org> <48515978.8040603@billgatliff.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48515978.8040603@billgatliff.com> Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Bill Gatliff Cc: linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 12:14:32PM -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote: > Paul Mundt wrote: > > > Yes, that's the easy case. It's things like perl that are the corner > > cases, and my objection comes from the fact that people think we ought to > > not have the kernel depend on perl rather than just fixing the package > > itself. Autoconf/libtool damage is an entirely different problem :-) > > > > At first glance, it seems like checkincludes.pl could be duplicated by egrep | > uniq | wc vs. egrep | wc. Not quite sure what checkversion.pl is trying to do. > > The namespace.pl script looks optional, as does export_report.pl. > > So maybe we could _reduce_ dependency on perl, if there's any advantage to gain > by doing so. But the kernel build machinery isn't dependent on very many other > systems (just tcl, bash and gcc-core), so I don't really see the point unless > you could completely eliminate perl. And I don't see how you might do *that* > without dragging in a bunch of stuff to replace it, thereby increasing the > number of dependencies. All the noise about the perl dependency of the kernel build are rooted in two things: 1) That we now have a mandatory part of the build that uses perl (see kernel/Makefile) 2) That I told that I consider rewriting the core of the build system in perl As for 1) I have seen a patch submitted once. And I do not hear many complaint either, albeit Rob Landley is a bit loud here (and he was also the one submitting the patch). That patch was not acceptable as is - and noone has updated it. As for 2) then let see if that ever happens ;-) Sam