Christoph Hellwig escribió: > On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 10:26:37AM +0100, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: > >> On Friday 02 of January 2009, Rob Landley wrote: >> >>> Before 2.6.25 (specifically git bdc807871d58285737d50dc6163d0feb72cb0dc2 ) >>> building a Linux kernel never required perl to be installed on the build >>> system. (Various development and debugging scripts were written in perl >>> and python and such, but they weren't involved in actually building a >>> kernel.) Building a kernel before 2.6.25 could be done with a minimal >>> system built from gcc, binutils, bash, make, busybox, uClibc, and the Linux >>> kernel, and nothing else. >>> >> And now bash is going to be required... while some distros don't need/have >> bash. /bin/sh should be enough. >> > > *nod* bash is in many ways a worse requirement than perl. strict posix > /bin/sh + awk + sed would be nicest, but if that's too much work perl > seems reasonable. well, bash is not worse as bash is trivial to cross-compile to run on a constrained sandbox and perl is a nightmare, but I agree bash should be avoided too.
I think the $(( ... )) bash-ism can be replaced with a simple .c helper toy. Thank Rob for reopening the topic. Alejandro Mery
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature