From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:52:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:52:41 -0400 Received: from otter.mbay.net ([206.40.79.2]:35858 "EHLO otter.mbay.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:52:36 -0400 From: jalvo@mbay.net (John Alvord) To: Disconnect Cc: Daniel Phillips , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Will 2.6 require Python for any configuration ? (CML2) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 22:52:35 GMT Message-ID: <3b8788c0.11437523@mail.mbay.net> In-Reply-To: <20010823144406.G25051@sigkill.net> <20010823153126.H25051@sigkill.net> In-Reply-To: <20010823153126.H25051@sigkill.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:31:26 -0400, Disconnect wrote: >On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Rik van Riel did have cause to say: > >> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Disconnect wrote: >> >> > ONLY task that they will use python for. And everyone who builds a kernel >> > will have gcc, so thats the 'ideal' dependency. Second and third most >> > likely, a C++ compiler or perl (depending on what you figure the >> > installbase of each one is). Forth, some form of java runtime. And after >> > that is python. >> >> Sounds like you'd just might be fanatical enough to implement >> CML2 in C or Perl, then ;) >> >> Personally, I'd welcome such a thing... > >You are mistaking my position I think. Personally, I like python quite a >bit ;) > >But my point isn't that its good/bad for CML2. My point is that I would >be very surprised if you had to install python in order to configure and >build a kernel under CML2, once CML2 is the official configuration >platform. (Right now it is necessary to have python to use cml2. But >CML2 is not yet in the stock kernel sources.) > >But until ESR either chimes in or releases the final CML2, this is a moot >discussion. ESR is awaiting the 2.5 branch and the makefile rewrite. My impression is that CML2 is "less bad" than CML in terms of weird languages and buggy interpreters. john