From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 04:10:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 04:09:51 -0400 Received: from krusty.E-Technik.Uni-Dortmund.DE ([129.217.163.1]:62224 "HELO krusty.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Fri, 24 Aug 2001 04:09:50 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 10:10:03 +0200 From: Matthias Andree To: Linux Kernel Subject: Re: Will 2.6 require Python for any configuration ? (CML2) Message-ID: <20010824101003.A16057@emma1.> Mail-Followup-To: Linux Kernel In-Reply-To: <20010822030807.N120@pervalidus> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010822030807.N120@pervalidus>; from 0@pervalidus.net on Wed, Aug 22, 2001 at 03:08:07AM -0300 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Frédéric L. W. Meunier wrote: > Am I the only one afraid that the Python requirement can turn > into a problem ? You can develop anything on Linux without > Python. I'd compare Python to Tcl - you only install it to > waste space, develop, or run applications that use it. Perl > is very different. It's required by GNU Automake and more. But you only install it to waste space, develop, or run applications that use it. What's the difference? > I'm really surprised by the fact that nobody noticed what a > nightmare 2.6 will be with such a requirement. You can't > expect everybody to install something that's of no use for > most. You'd expect distributors to ship a Python version that's suited for Kernel configuration by then. If they don't, well, get another distribution. > My intention isn't to diminish the importance of CML2 and the > hard and volunteer work of Eric S. Raymond. I just can't > consider Python a requirement to configure the build process > of a Kernel. Why not? You expect people to have a not-too recent GCC, GNU make and other tools, so why not Python? Of course, a standalone code that'd run out of C would be fine, but if that comes with less maintainability or would be more difficult to maintain, there's nothing to be gained. Is there a py2c compiler? If so, it might be useful if kernel.org carried a compiled version of CML2, if at all possible. But I feel there's no need to whine about 2.6. Enough time for distributors to ship their distributions with Python 2.x.1 and for distributors or third parties to package Python2 for older distribution releases. The only valid point might be "embedded systems", but then again, you should be able to cross compile the kernel for your embedded system for fun and for speed. Regards, Matthias Andree