Re: source dependencies cleanup? (fwd)

Adam D. Bradley (bradley@cs.unca.edu)
Thu, 5 Dec 1996 11:38:09 -0500 (EST)

> Oh, one other things, while I'm thinking of it. I know this was brought up
> quite some time ago (I think it was as far back as 1.1.x) but I don't
> remember the outcome.
>
> The question is: is there any GOOD reason why the Configure program is
> still written as a bash script? I'm a big fan of Perl myself, and I'd say
> it's reasonable to expect anyone who is configuring and compiling their
> own kernel to have Perl installed. Obviously we wouldn't want to depend on
> my particular Perl _libraries_ being installed, just the bare necessities.

Actually, this same question buzzed around for a while a month or so ago,
about whether we should require perl to do mkdep. As I recall, the answer
was a resounding "maybe", ie, go ahead and write a Perl script to do it,
but it's not going to replace scripts that only require "universal"
utilities (ie bash, gcc 2.7.2.1 (is that universal yet??? ;-), etc).

Of course, this point may bear making: if a bleeding-edge kernel hacker
may be required to momentarily suck up 40MB (40 * 2^20 bytes) or so of
disk space to compile+install the latest binutils, then perhaps installing
perl isn't such a hurculean thing to demand either...? But then, there's
the flip-side argument: we constantly use binutils. Installing perl for
one or two utilities (mkdep and configure) that represent such a small
percentage of compile/build time/power could be a frivolous waste of disk
space.

Anyway, we killed that debate too recently...plz don't fire it up again...

Adam

--
He feeds on ashes; a deluded mind has led him    Adam Bradley, UNCA Senior
astray, and he cannot deliver himself or say,             Computer Science
"Is there not a lie in my right hand?"   Isaiah 44:20
        bradley@cs.unca.edu       http://www.cs.unca.edu/~bradley      <><