On Friday 02 January 2009 04:16:53 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
> >>> 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.

No, $[ ] is the bashism, $(( )) is susv3:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18_06_04

I intentionally switched from $[ ] to $(( )) to make dash work.

Rob
--
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

Reply via email to