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: <495DE995.1070002@opensde.org>
Date:	Fri, 02 Jan 2009 11:16:53 +0100
From:	Alejandro Mery <amery@...nsde.org>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC:	Arkadiusz Miskiewicz <a.miskiewicz@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
	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.

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.

Thank Rob for reopening the topic.

Alejandro Mery


Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (5013 bytes)