From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Mark A. Miller" Subject: Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl. Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:03:32 -0600 Message-ID: <31014a580901120203v593ce9bdn6876263770efbeae@mail.gmail.com> References: <200901020207.30359.rob@landley.net> <495FEEAF.5020005@zytor.com> <200901032006.47652.rob@landley.net> <20090104030619.GA21466@linux-sh.org> <1231677939.3517.5.camel@gimli.at.home> <31014a580901111936q41486efagcb90af2b6880a470@mail.gmail.com> <20090112082058.GB28564@linux-sh.org> <31014a580901120118u55256b51g448f22e9e0ef5d1f@mail.gmail.com> <20090112094121.GD28564@linux-sh.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090112094121.GD28564@linux-sh.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-embedded-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Paul Mundt , "Mark A. Miller" , Bernd Petrovitsch , Leon Woestenberg , Rob Landley On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Paul Mundt wrote: > I will repeat, there has not been a single coherent argument against what > makes perl inherently incapable of being supported. You're right, this thread is worthless with that particular mindset, Paul. Not, perhaps that the tool in question is brittle, and prone to potentially break on more architectures than the current make and C code infrastructure, no, your stance is, unless Perl *cannot* run on that particular architecture and environment, it has a valid place in the kernel because it was chosen by certain developers. And you're right, I did patch around Perl in order to get it to build under a MIPSEL uclibc environment. But yes, this particular thread with you *is* worthless, because it's an argument who's stance is not worth fighting against because of it's flawed premise. -- Mark A. Miller mark@mirell.org