linux-kernel - Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200901020515.33703.rob@landley.net>
Date:	Fri, 2 Jan 2009 05:15:32 -0600
From:	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
To:	Alejandro Mery <amery@...nsde.org>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <a.miskiewicz@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Embedded Linux mailing list <linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
Subject: Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

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-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/