Re: Actual environment size comparison of CML1 and CML2

From: Eric S. Raymond (
Date: Sat May 27 2000 - 02:52:41 EST

david parsons <>:
> > 1,976,362 CML1 tools (with generated tk files needed to run)
> "with generated tk files needed to run"
> So, you're stating that I need tk to run the existing configuration
> tools? I really really hate to have to break this to you, but you
> don't need tk to configure a Linux kernel, even if you do the
> configuration from inside X Windows.

I'm well aware of this. But I was trying to compare apples to apples.

> > Another thing we see is that anybody who'd take Perl over Python
> > on size-economy grounds is smoking serious drugs and should be taken
> > somewhere to calm down.
> Perl has already oozed its way into the kernel, so we're stuck
> with it already.

As others have pointed out, Perl has only "oozed" into auxilliary stuff
not needed to do a build.
> > Why am I including Tcl/Tk?
> Because you've been working with that hammer for so long that that
> long sharp pointy thing with an engraved cross on the head must be
> a nail?

Ghods, no. cmlconfigure is exactly the second Tcl/Tk program I have
written. I don't *like* Tcl/Tk, but I can live with it.

Again, let's compare apples to apples. Maybe you want to throw away xconfig
entirely. Maybe *I* want to. It's not realistically possible.

		<a href="">Eric S. Raymond</a>

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 21:00:17 EST