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 15:01:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:01:25 -0400 Received: from khan.acc.umu.se ([130.239.18.139]:26051 "EHLO khan.acc.umu.se") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:01:09 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 21:01:21 +0200 From: David Weinehall To: Disconnect Cc: Daniel Phillips , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Will 2.6 require Python for any configuration ? (CML2) Message-ID: <20010823210121.E1434@khan.acc.umu.se> In-Reply-To: <20010822030807.N120@pervalidus> <20010823103620.A6965@kittpeak.ece.umn.edu> <20010823115506.D25051@sigkill.net> <20010823182934Z16190-32383+1035@humbolt.nl.linux.org> <20010823144406.G25051@sigkill.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: <20010823144406.G25051@sigkill.net>; from lkml@sigkill.net on Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 02:44:06PM -0400 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 02:44:06PM -0400, Disconnect wrote: > On Thu, 23 Aug 2001, Daniel Phillips did have cause to say: > > Take a close look at the word "just" in that sentence. Kernel configuration > > is not a trivial task at all and it gets less trivial every time Linux gets > > more general. > > I don't disagree. But the point isn't how trivial or non-trivial the task > of configuring the kernel is, the point is for a lot of people it is the > 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. (I'm not advocating using any of the above for kernel > configuration. But they are more likely to already be installed than > python is.) > > What this says is that either linux sources are going to grow (and the > build process get more complex) by whatever the size of the python > interpreter is, OR some method will be used that doesn't require a > separate interpreter. > > This is also in agreement with his statement about reducing the dependence > on external tools, whereas requiring everyone to install python does not. > It could either be read as using straight gcc C -or- as including all the > external tools in buildable form. I'm betting on the former. Look, either you implement CML2 in C (it can be done; but I'd wager it isn't easy), or you pay someone else to do it, _or_ you stop complaining. Simple as that. If you really can't stand having Python on your machine (I'll bet it's a perl vs python religious thing... I have both installed), there's always $EDITOR + .config for you to use. I promise that you won't have to install any extra libraries/compilers/whatever to use that one. Read the archives damn it, it's not the first time this kind of arguing takes place here. I'll give you another option: make do with the current set of tools (with all of its errors and short-comings, which are _numerous_) and maintain a forward-compatible version. /David _ _ // David Weinehall /> Northern lights wander \\ // Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/