On Jan 2, 2009, at 4:16 AM, Alejandro Mery wrote:
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
building a Linux kernel never required perl to be installed on
system. (Various development and debugging scripts were written
and python and such, but they weren't involved in actually
kernel.) Building a kernel before 2.6.25 could be done with a
system built from gcc, binutils, bash, make, busybox, uClibc, and
And now bash is going to be required... while some distros don't
kernel, and nothing else.
bash. /bin/sh should be enough.
*nod* bash is in many ways a worse requirement than perl. strict
/bin/sh + awk + sed would be nicest, but if that's too much work perl
well, bash is not worse as bash is trivial to cross-compile to run
constrained sandbox and perl is a nightmare, but I agree bash should
I think the $(( ... )) bash-ism can be replaced with a simple .c
Thank Rob for reopening the topic.
And actually, one of the things that I just recalled, is that several
of the Perl configure scripts in order to actually build itself, rely
on Bourne shell calls. So the argument to require a strict POSIX+sed
+awk implementation rather than Perl to build the kernel, fails, since
you already require some variant of shell greater than strict POSIX /
bin/sh to build Perl. So this is one less dependency.
Also, attempting to cross-compile Perl, is indeed a nightmare.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html