Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753219AbZALJTP (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:19:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751480AbZALJS5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:18:57 -0500 Received: from mail-gx0-f17.google.com ([209.85.217.17]:51892 "EHLO mail-gx0-f17.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751627AbZALJSz (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:18:55 -0500 Message-ID: <31014a580901120118u55256b51g448f22e9e0ef5d1f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:18:53 -0600 From: "Mark A. Miller" To: "Paul Mundt" , "Mark A. Miller" , "Bernd Petrovitsch" , "Leon Woestenberg" , "Rob Landley" , "H. Peter Anvin" , "Embedded Linux mailing list" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Andrew Morton" , "Sam Ravnborg" Subject: Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl. In-Reply-To: <20090112082058.GB28564@linux-sh.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200901020207.30359.rob@landley.net> <495FEEAF.5020005@zytor.com> <200901032006.47652.rob@landley.net> <20090104030619.GA21466@linux-sh.org> <1231677939.3517.5.camel@gimli.at.home> <31014a580901111936q41486efagcb90af2b6880a470@mail.gmail.com> <20090112082058.GB28564@linux-sh.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3330 Lines: 70 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 typically what you want for embedded >> systems, which is why you'd bother to cross compile. (Albeit I was >> doing this natively under QEMU with a gcc/uclibc toolchain). >> >> I'll have a patch submitted upstream shortly, but basically the >> hints/linux.sh assumes *obviously* you're linking to glibc. I've made >> that less libc dependent, looking for either glibc or uclibc. >> > There are plenty that ship with glibc, too. What you "want" for embedded > systems depends entirely on the application for the device, not general > hand-wavy assertions. We (Renesas) ship BSPs on both precisely because of > this reason, and eglibc will probably factor in at some point later on > too. > >> So without patching Perl, by adding it to the kernel configuration, >> it's broken being able to compile the kernel on most embedded >> architectures. >> > This again has nothing to do with the kernel and everything to do with > your distribution. I use perl on uclibc natively just fine, it is > possible there are patches that have not been merged upstream, but this > is again an entirely separate issue. > > You seem to be confusing the fact that people who build distributions and > people who use them are one and the same, whereas "most" embedded > developers are going to be using pre-built distributions provided with > their reference hardware, and locking it down during productization. The > fact you are doing a distribution aimed at embedded devices is nice, but > do not try to push off problems you run in to that have a reasonable > expectation of working everywhere else on to the kernel community as > something we ought to care about. > > If you need to use a different libc on your platform, yes, you will have > to update packages for this. This used to be true for gcc and other > packages as well, but those were all fixed over time. The fact perl still > stands out despite there being patches available is simply an indicator > that folks working in that area haven't been very proactive in getting > their changes merged upstream. Tough. > > This is now entirely off-topic and has nothing to do with the kernel any > more. Please take this to the uclibc or perl lists instead. > 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 a > _single_ reason for why they are unable to provide perl within their > constrained environment. Until that happens, this entire thread is a > joke. And I did so. And you have disregarded it. That makes me question the logic of your fervent vehemence against such "Perl is perhaps not a good idea in the kernel build infrastructure" people like myself. Thanks. -- Mark A. Miller mark@mirell.org -- 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/