Re: Actual environment size comparison of CML1 and CML2

From: david parsons (
Date: Sat May 27 2000 - 03:15:14 EST

Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> david parsons <>:

> > 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.

      Alas, this is not the case. look in drivers/scsi -- the sequencer
      for the ncr810 needs perl to compile and has since 1.2.13.

> > > 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.

     What I'm complaining about does not involve throwing away xconfig.
     I don't use it. At all. This means I can build the kernel without
     having to have tcl/tk floating around -- at worst, I need to have
     ncurses around for that. If the old shell script configuration
     stuff is thrown out and replaced with something that requires
     Python, no Python means no kernels get built.

     david parsons \bi/ I can live without ncr810 support because an increasing
                    \/ number of modern bioses don't support it, but not being
                            able to configure the kernel is hard to work around.

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