On Fri, 4 Oct 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 08:41:35PM +0200, 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. 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 ? > > Just running through the Makefiles, it seems we have a fair amount > of stuff already using perl in various ways. So I wouldn't worry too > much about where it's placed. It's probably something that should > eventually end up in scripts/ at _some_ point. BTW, Russell's opinion has precedence over what I just said. 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
