Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

2009-01-12 Thread Alan Cox
> I didn't say it was incapable of being supported. We're _capable_ of > reimplementing the entire kernel in perl Which perl. What minor release, what day of the week syntax. Ask anyone in the distribution business about the joy of perl and you can listen to the screams for hours. Perl5 has n

Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

2009-01-12 Thread Rob Landley
On Monday 12 January 2009 03:41:22 Paul Mundt wrote: > Personally I think perl (and python for that matter) is a terrible > language and I wouldn't use it for anything of consequence, but again, > that is my personal opinion and has nothing to do with regards to the > build system and whether it wa

Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

2009-01-12 Thread Rob Landley
On Monday 12 January 2009 02:27:32 Peter Korsgaard wrote: > > "Mark" == Mark A Miller writes: > > Mark> And for H. Peter Anvin, before you refer to such uses as compiling > the Mark> kernel under a native environment as a "piece of art", please be > aware Mark> that the mainstream embedded de

Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

2009-01-12 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Monday 12 January 2009 11:55:32 Mark A. Miller wrote: > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Alexander Neundorf > > wrote: > > On Monday 12 January 2009 11:22:47 you wrote: > > ... > > > >> entire environment, QEMU allows it nicely with distcc at a reasonable > >> speed. (Albeit there is no distcon

Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

2009-01-12 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Monday 12 January 2009 11:22:47 you wrote: ... > entire environment, QEMU allows it nicely with distcc at a reasonable > speed. (Albeit there is no distconfigure, but that's entirely an > unrelated tanget of muck and despair and rants against configure, but > we're not going there...) I'd be in

Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

2009-01-12 Thread Mark A. Miller
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > On Monday 12 January 2009 11:22:47 you wrote: > ... >> entire environment, QEMU allows it nicely with distcc at a reasonable >> speed. (Albeit there is no distconfigure, but that's entirely an >> unrelated tanget of muck and despair and

Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

2009-01-12 Thread Paul Mundt
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:18:03AM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:50:31PM -0600, Mark A. Miller wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > >> There are several other packages which are broken for embedded > > >> architectures, which I will hopeful

Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

2009-01-12 Thread Paul Mundt
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 04:03:32AM -0600, Mark A. Miller wrote: > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Paul Mundt wrote: > > I will repeat, there has not been a single coherent argument against what > > makes perl inherently incapable of being supported. > > You're right, this thread is worthless wit

Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

2009-01-12 Thread Mark A. Miller
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:50:31PM -0600, Mark A. Miller wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote: >> >> There are several other packages which are broken for embedded >> >> architectures, which I will hopefully attempt

Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

2009-01-12 Thread Sam Ravnborg
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:50:31PM -0600, Mark A. Miller wrote: > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > >> There are several other packages which are broken for embedded > >> architectures, which I will hopefully attempt to fix by submitting patches > >> upstream. But this is why

Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

2009-01-12 Thread Mark A. Miller
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Paul Mundt wrote: > I will repeat, there has not been a single coherent argument against what > makes perl inherently incapable of being supported. You're right, this thread is worthless with that particular mindset, Paul. Not, perhaps that the tool in question i

Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

2009-01-12 Thread Paul Mundt
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 03:18:53AM -0600, Mark A. Miller wrote: > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Paul Mundt wrote: > > Paul: > I initially wrote a rather details response to your e-mail. But > instead, I shall quote a previous e-mail of yours: > > > I will repeat again that no one has provided

Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

2009-01-12 Thread Mark A. Miller
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Paul Mundt wrote: > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:36:58PM -0600, Mark A. Miller wrote: >> Actually, something that has amused me during this discussion, is that >> right now, the latest stable Perl (5.8.8) does not compile correctly >> on a uclibc host, which is typic

Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

2009-01-12 Thread Peter Korsgaard
> "Mark" == Mark A Miller writes: Mark> And for H. Peter Anvin, before you refer to such uses as compiling the Mark> kernel under a native environment as a "piece of art", please be aware Mark> that the mainstream embedded development environment, buildroot, is Mark> also attempting to ut

Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

2009-01-12 Thread Paul Mundt
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:36:58PM -0600, Mark A. Miller wrote: > Actually, something that has amused me during this discussion, is that > right now, the latest stable Perl (5.8.8) does not compile correctly > on a uclibc host, which is typically what you want for embedded > systems, which is why y