On Thu, 25 May 2000, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> James Sutherland <email@example.com>:
> > > Even if this weren't true, we'd be trading dependencies and not adding
> > > one. The Perl stuff in the scripts directory will go away shortly
> > > (that is, assuming that Linus approves the CML1->CML2 change). This
> > > would be a net gain in kernel autonomy, as Perl *can't* be compiled away.
> > perlcc?
> Is, I'm told, a kluge much like the freeze tool. You can compile away
> control structure but you end up carrying around most of Perl as
> runtime support.
Personally, I wouldn't recommend using either. Just adding Python to the
list of requirements for configuration seems fair, IMHO; while the kernel
is USED on heavily cut-down systems, it doesn't need to be buildable on
I don't want to see another holy war starting - the "GPL for libraries"
debate was quite enough for one lifetime - but I don't like the idea of
"getting rid of" the Perl scripts. If it works, use it, if not, fix it or
report it as a bug. Perl, python, make, gcc etc. are all common enough
(and free enough!) to have as requirements, I think.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:13 EST