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

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Reply via email to