On Fri, 4 Oct 2013, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On 4 October 2013 20:34, Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Oct 2013, Will Deacon wrote: > [...] > >> > >> Why do you consider it unsuitable to ship the perl script with the kernel? > >> Perl 5 is already documented as a build dependency in Documentation/Changes > > > > Do you have an example of something that does require perl to build the > > kernel on ARM? I was under the impression that people try to avoid it > > as much as possible in general. > > > > I'm personally sitting on the fence between effectively adding a new > > kernel build dependencies or carrying the output of the perl script. > > But if the kernel build does already require perl in practice then this > > might tip the balance. > > > > I like Russell's suggestion the most, in fact. Me too. > In this case, the build time requirement for Perl effectively gets > suspended until you start making modifications to the perl script, and > the relation between the .S and the .pl files is made explicit by the > make rule. > > Should I put the cmd_perl rule in scripts/Makefile.build ? Or can I > just keep it under arch/arm/crypto ? To avoid possible gag reactions from the wider community I'd suggest you keep it local for now. Unless there are already such perl usage elsewhere in the tree in which case abstracting it to scripts/Makefile.build first is recommended. Nicolas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
