On Friday 02 January 2009 04:16:53 Alejandro Mery wrote: > Christoph Hellwig escribió: > > On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 10:26:37AM +0100, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: > >> On Friday 02 of January 2009, Rob Landley wrote: > >>> Before 2.6.25 (specifically git > >>> bdc807871d58285737d50dc6163d0feb72cb0dc2 ) building a Linux kernel > >>> never required perl to be installed on the build system. (Various > >>> development and debugging scripts were written in perl and python and > >>> such, but they weren't involved in actually building a kernel.) > >>> Building a kernel before 2.6.25 could be done with a minimal system > >>> built from gcc, binutils, bash, make, busybox, uClibc, and the Linux > >>> kernel, and nothing else. > >> > >> And now bash is going to be required... while some distros don't > >> need/have bash. /bin/sh should be enough. > > > > *nod* bash is in many ways a worse requirement than perl. strict posix > > /bin/sh + awk + sed would be nicest, but if that's too much work perl > > seems reasonable. > > well, bash is not worse as bash is trivial to cross-compile to run on a > constrained sandbox and perl is a nightmare, but I agree bash should be > avoided too. > > I think the $(( ... )) bash-ism can be replaced with a simple .c helper > toy. No, $[ ] is the bashism, $(( )) is susv3: http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18_06_04 I intentionally switched from $[ ] to $(( )) to make dash work. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-embedded" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
