To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, matthias.andree@stud.uni-dortmund.de
Subject: Re: [kbuild-devel] Converting the 2.5 kernel to kbuild 2.5
Cc: esr@thyrsus.com, hch@caldera.de, kaos@ocs.com.au,
        kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, torvalds@transmeta.com
Message-Id: <E16BJ3x-0001qq-00@DervishD.viadomus.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 18:08:57 +0100
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ra=FAl?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?N=FA=F1ez?= de Arenas
	 Coronado <raul@viadomus.com>
Reply-To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ra=FAl?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?N=FA=F1ez?= de Arenas
	   Coronado <raul@viadomus.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

    Hi Matthias :)

>Creating a dependency on Python? Is a non-issue.

    Maybe for you. For me it *is* an issue. I don't like more and
more dependencies for the kernel. I mean, if I can drop kbuild and
keep on building the kernel with the old good 'make config' I won't
worry, but otherwise I don't think that kernel building depends on
something like Python.

    Why must I install Python in order to compile the kernel? I don't
understand this. I think there are better alternatives, but kbuild
seems to be imposed any way.

>You don't make the pen yourself when writing a letter either.

    I don't like to be forced in a particular pen, that's the reason
why I use and develop for linux.

>What are the precise issues with Python? Just claiming it is an
>issue is not useful for discussing this. Archive pointers are
>welcome.

    Well, let's start writing kernel drivers with Python, Perl, PHP,
awk, etc... And, why not, C++, Ada, Modula, etc...

    The kernel should depend just on the compiler and assembler, IMHO.

    Ra?l
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/