Re: source dependencies cleanup? (fwd)
Andrew E. Mileski (aem@nic.ott.hookup.net)
Thu, 5 Dec 1996 11:05:57 -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.
>
> The reason I ask is that if/when I do start rewriting Configure to
> seperate dependancy information, Perl would make the program much easier
> to write.
Perl is not available on all systems, but bash is (I think it is a
requirement for compiling the kernel, isn't it?).
As for alternative configuration programs, those already exist too
for curses and X, though I think they could be improved (simplified).
What would be a _GREAT_ idea, is to write a configuration program
for all the niggling little bits, like changing NR_* easily, so that below
average chimp intelligence is required :-)
--
Andrew E. Mileski mailto:aem@ott.hookup.net
Linux Plug-and-Play Kernel Project http://www.redhat.com/linux-info/pnp/
XFree86 Matrox Team http://www.bf.rmit.edu.au/~ajv/xf86-matrox.html