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

2009-01-16 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:11:09 CST, Rob Landley said: P.S. I still hope autoconf dies off and the world wakes up and moves away from that. And from makefiles for that matter. But in the meantime, I can work around it with enough effort. What do you propose autoconf and makefiles get

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

2009-01-15 Thread Jamie Lokier
Pádraig Brady wrote: The $(( ... )) construct is standard POSIX shell syntax, see http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/95399/utilities/xcu_chap02.html#tag_02_06_04 Bash supports $[ ... ] as an alternate syntax for the same thing. Perhaps you were thinking of that. I think the

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

2009-01-15 Thread Måns Rullgård
Jamie Lokier ja...@shareable.org writes: Pádraig Brady wrote: The $(( ... )) construct is standard POSIX shell syntax, see http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/95399/utilities/xcu_chap02.html#tag_02_06_04 Bash supports $[ ... ] as an alternate syntax for the same thing. Perhaps you

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

2009-01-15 Thread Rob Landley
On Tuesday 13 January 2009 20:51:16 Jamie Lokier wrote: Paul Mundt wrote: This happens in a lot of places, like embedded gentoo ports, where almost all of the work is sent across distcc to a cross-compilation machine. In systems that use package management, it is done on the host through

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

2009-01-13 Thread Jamie Lokier
Paul Mundt wrote: This happens in a lot of places, like embedded gentoo ports, where almost all of the work is sent across distcc to a cross-compilation machine. In systems that use package management, it is done on the host through emulation, or painfully cross-compiled. Ah yes, I remember

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

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

2009-01-12 Thread Peter Korsgaard
Mark == Mark A Miller m...@mirell.org 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

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 let...@linux-sh.org 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,

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 let...@linux-sh.org 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

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 let...@linux-sh.org 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

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 s...@ravnborg.org wrote: There are several other packages which are broken for embedded architectures, which I will hopefully attempt to fix by submitting patches upstream. But

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 let...@linux-sh.org 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

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 s...@ravnborg.org wrote: There are several other packages which are broken for embedded architectures, which I will

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

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 m...@mirell.org 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

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

2009-01-11 Thread Bernd Petrovitsch
On Son, 2009-01-04 at 11:23 +0100, Leon Woestenberg wrote: [...] On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Paul Mundt let...@linux-sh.org wrote: [...] I'm ignoring the cross-compile perl issue - haven't tried it for years. 5. Tool *version* dependency is hard to get right. When cross-building 30

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

2009-01-11 Thread Mark A. Miller
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Bernd Petrovitsch be...@firmix.at wrote: On Son, 2009-01-04 at 11:23 +0100, Leon Woestenberg wrote: [...] On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Paul Mundt let...@linux-sh.org wrote: [...] I'm ignoring the cross-compile perl issue - haven't tried it for years.

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

2009-01-11 Thread H. Peter Anvin
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... The latest stable Perl is 5.10.0, and the latest of the 5.8 series is 5.8.9. -hpa -- H. Peter

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

2009-01-11 Thread Mark A. Miller
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:11 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote: 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... The latest stable Perl is 5.10.0, and

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

2009-01-11 Thread Sam Ravnborg
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 we should be cautious about including new tools for compiling the kernel. Sam Ravnborg was correct in that a C program to do the

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

2009-01-11 Thread Mark A. Miller
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Sam Ravnborg s...@ravnborg.org 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 we should be cautious about including new tools for

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

2009-01-08 Thread klaasjan gm
Rob and to whom it may concern, I didn't discover this topic independently. Somebody pinged me about it on freenode back in February, and several other people sent me private email about it, and it's been previously raised on several other mailing lists (such as busybox and uclibc ones).

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

2009-01-08 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 05:23, Leon Woestenberg wrote: On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Paul Mundt let...@linux-sh.org wrote: Let's look at the rationale presented so far in this thread: 2 - Cross-compiling perl is hard. 2 is not hard. i dont know where you're getting this mythical

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

2009-01-04 Thread Sam Ravnborg
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 07:45:34PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote: With respect to your three patches the plan is to: - add the updated timeconst patch to kbuild-next - add the updated cpu-feature patch to kbuild-next - the patch touching headers_install will not be merged. The way forward

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

2009-01-04 Thread Leon Woestenberg
Hello, On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 4:06 AM, Paul Mundt let...@linux-sh.org wrote: Let's look at the rationale presented so far in this thread: 1 - Being able to build the kernel natively on a constrained target is useful, regardless of whether it is being used for

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

2009-01-03 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Paul Mundt, In message 20090102095023.ga28...@linux-sh.org you wrote: Your main reasons against inclusion of perl seem to be that there is no realistic expectation for target systems that will be self-hosting will have perl included, or the inherent complexity in maintaining a coherent

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

2009-01-03 Thread Rob Landley
On Friday 02 January 2009 10:04:08 Matthieu CASTET wrote: Rob Landley a écrit : On Friday 02 January 2009 03:26:37 Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: On Friday 02 of January 2009, Rob Landley wrote: Heh, I believe all three scripts run under dash and busybox ash. (The timeconst.sh one

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

2009-01-03 Thread Rob Landley
On Friday 02 January 2009 12:01:34 Sam Ravnborg wrote: But the serie rased anohter topic: shall we ban use of perl for generating a kernel. I dunno about ban, but every time somebody adds perl to the hot path of the kernel build it breaks my build system, and I write a removal patch anyway.

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

2009-01-03 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Sam Ravnborg wrote: With respect to your three patches the plan is to: - add the updated timeconst patch to kbuild-next If you add this, you take the responsibility for the breakages that will occur. The reason his patch is simpler is because he removes the arbitrary-precision arithmetic, and

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

2009-01-03 Thread Leon Woestenberg
Hello all, On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Rob Landley r...@landley.net 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

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

2009-01-03 Thread Robert Hancock
Rob Landley wrote: For the record, the reason I can't just pregenerate all these suckers on a system that's got an arbitrary precision calculator (ala dc) and then just ship the resulting header files (more or less the what the first version of that first patch did) is that some architectures

PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl v2

2009-01-03 Thread Rob Landley
Here's an updated set of patches to remove use of perl from the kernel build's hot path (roughly defined as make allnoconfig; make; make headers_install). This update incorporates feedback from Sam Ravnborg, Ted Tso, Joe Perches, Ingo Oeser, and others. It also fixes an integer overflow error

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

2009-01-03 Thread Rob Landley
On Friday 02 January 2009 10:04:08 Matthieu CASTET wrote: Rob Landley a écrit : On Friday 02 January 2009 03:26:37 Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: On Friday 02 of January 2009, Rob Landley wrote: Heh, I believe all three scripts run under dash and busybox ash. (The timeconst.sh one

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

2009-01-03 Thread Rob Landley
On Friday 02 January 2009 13:27:45 H. Peter Anvin wrote: Sam Ravnborg wrote: Hi Wookey. Given the simplicitly of these patches I can't see any reason not to put them in Please do NOT do the mistake and think this the same thing. Rob's patch simplyfy the timecost stuff - and will

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

2009-01-03 Thread David Brownell
On Saturday 03 January 2009, Robert Hancock wrote: Rob Landley wrote: ... some architectures (arm omap and and arm at91) allow you to enter arbitrary HZ values in kconfig. (Their help text says that in many cases values that aren't powers of two won't work, but nothing enforces

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

2009-01-03 Thread Rob Landley
On Saturday 03 January 2009 17:03:11 H. Peter Anvin wrote: Leon Woestenberg wrote: I agree with Rob that the amount of required dependencies should be kept to a minimum. If we only use 0.5% of a certain language (or: dependent package), then rather implement that 0.5% in the existing

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

2009-01-03 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Rob Landley wrote: The new patches have *more* environmental dependencies than that ever did. Could you please be a little more specific? In this case, you're assuming that every version of every shell this is going to get involved with is going to do math correctly with the requisite

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

2009-01-03 Thread Rob Landley
On Friday 02 January 2009 08:04:09 Theodore Tso wrote: Sounds like though modulo dealing with 64-bit arithmetic, your patches are mostly dash/POSIX.2 comformant, so you're probably mostly good on that front once you address the 32/64-bit issues. I'd also suggest explicitly add a reminder to

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

2009-01-03 Thread Jamie Lokier
Rob Landley wrote: This doesn't _need_ bignum support. It maxes out around 72 bits and the _result_ can't use more than about $SHIFT bits because you're dividing by the amount you shifted, so just chop off the bottom 32 bits, do a normal 64 bit division on the top (it has to fit), and then

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

2009-01-03 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Jamie Lokier wrote: Related query: Does the Perl script being replaced use 64-bit arithmetic? Because many Perl installations only do 32-bit arithmetic. If the Perl version works in 32-bit arithmetic, why does the shell version not do the same thing? The Perl version uses

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

2009-01-03 Thread Markus Heidelberg
Rob Landley, 04.01.2009: On Saturday 03 January 2009 18:37:12 Leon Woestenberg wrote: My argument on thin dependencies indeed mostly holds for run-time dependencies (to reduce size) but also for build dependency (to reduce complexity)*. I usually just point to the gnucash 1.6 release as

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

2009-01-03 Thread Rob Landley
On Saturday 03 January 2009 21:38:13 Markus Heidelberg wrote: Rob Landley, 04.01.2009: Now that you mention this the second time, I have to ask where you have this information from. Since I use Gentoo, I was always able to compile OpenOffice (version 1, 2 and now 3) myself. The gentoo panel

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

2009-01-03 Thread Rob Landley
On Saturday 03 January 2009 20:14:44 H. Peter Anvin wrote: Rob Landley wrote: The new patches have *more* environmental dependencies than that ever did. Could you please be a little more specific? In this case, you're assuming that every version of every shell this is going to get

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

2009-01-02 Thread Arkadiusz Miskiewicz
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

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

2009-01-02 Thread Christoph Hellwig
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

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

2009-01-02 Thread Paul Mundt
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 02:07:28AM -0600, 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

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

2009-01-02 Thread Mark Miller
On Jan 2, 2009, at 3:26 AM, 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

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

2009-01-02 Thread Mark Miller
On Jan 2, 2009, at 4:02 AM, Mark Miller wrote: On Jan 2, 2009, at 3:26 AM, 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

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

2009-01-02 Thread Alejandro Mery
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

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

2009-01-02 Thread Mark Miller
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 bdc807871d58285737d50dc6163d0feb72cb0dc2 ) building a Linux

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

2009-01-02 Thread Paul Mundt
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 04:32:42AM -0600, Mark Miller wrote: On Jan 2, 2009, at 3:50 AM, Paul Mundt wrote: Misguided rhetoric aside, what does this actually accomplish? If folks add meaningful tools in to the kernel that require python, and it is generally regarded as being fairly ubiquitous,

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

2009-01-02 Thread Rob Landley
On Friday 02 January 2009 03:26:37 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

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

2009-01-02 Thread Rob Landley
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

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

2009-01-02 Thread Matt Keenan
On Fri, 2009-01-02 at 04:30 -0600, Mark Miller wrote: 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

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

2009-01-02 Thread Mark Miller
On Jan 2, 2009, at 4:57 AM, Paul Mundt wrote: On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 04:32:42AM -0600, Mark Miller wrote: On Jan 2, 2009, at 3:50 AM, Paul Mundt wrote: Misguided rhetoric aside, what does this actually accomplish? If folks add meaningful tools in to the kernel that require python, and it

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

2009-01-02 Thread Rob Landley
On Friday 02 January 2009 03:50:23 Paul Mundt wrote: On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 02:07:28AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote: The perl checkin for 2.6.25 was the camel's nose under the tent flap, and since then two more instances of perl have shown up in the core kernel build. This patch series removes

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

2009-01-02 Thread Rob Landley
On Friday 02 January 2009 03:49:34 Christoph Hellwig wrote: 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

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

2009-01-02 Thread Theodore Tso
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 06:56:31AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote: That said, how is bash _worse_ than perl? (Where's the second implementation of perl? Even Python had jython, but perl has... what? The attempt to rebase on Parrot went down in flames...) (1) bash implies POSIX extensions; perl

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

2009-01-02 Thread Matthieu CASTET
Rob Landley a écrit : On Friday 02 January 2009 03:26:37 Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: On Friday 02 of January 2009, Rob Landley wrote: Heh, I believe all three scripts run under dash and busybox ash. (The timeconst.sh one needs 64 bit math which dash only provides on 64 bit hosts, which

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

2009-01-02 Thread Wookey
On 2009-01-02 18:50 +0900, Paul Mundt wrote: Your main reasons against inclusion of perl seem to be that there is no realistic expectation for target systems that will be self-hosting will have perl included, or the inherent complexity in maintaining a coherent cross compiling environment.

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

2009-01-02 Thread Sam Ravnborg
Hi Wookey. Given the simplicitly of these patches I can't see any reason not to put them in Please do NOT do the mistake and think this the same thing. Rob's patch simplyfy the timecost stuff - and will be applied on this merit alone assuming comments will be addressed. But the serie rased

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

2009-01-02 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Sam Ravnborg wrote: Hi Wookey. Given the simplicitly of these patches I can't see any reason not to put them in Please do NOT do the mistake and think this the same thing. Rob's patch simplyfy the timecost stuff - and will be applied on this merit alone assuming comments will be