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: <20090117095143.GA20389@shareable.org>
Date:	Sat, 17 Jan 2009 09:51:43 +0000
From:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
To:	Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
Cc:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu,
	Embedded Linux mailing list <linux-embedded@...r.kernel.org>,
	Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

Rob Landley wrote:
> On Friday 16 January 2009 08:54:42 Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 00:11:09 CST, Rob Landley said:
> > > P.S.  I still hope autoconf dies off and the world wakes up and moves
> > > away from that.  And from makefiles for that matter.  But in the
> > > meantime, I can work around it with enough effort.
> >
> > What do you propose autoconf and makefiles get replaced by?
> 

> I've never built pidgin from source, but I've got the output of the binutils 
> build in a log file. 
> How many of these tests are actually necessary on an Linux system:

None, but then it's not a Linux-only program that you're compiling.
(Nor is it Linux-in-2009-only).

If you _know_ you're running on Linux from a particular era, you can
provide a config.cache file with the correct answers already filled in.

I agree that Autoconf sucks (I've written enough sucking Autoconf
macros myself, I hate it), but the tough part is providing a suitable
replacement when you still want portable source code.

> It just goes on and on and on like this.  Tests like "checking
> whether byte ordering is bigendian... no" means "Either I didn't
> know endian.h existed, or I don't trust it to be there".  How about
> the long stretches checking for the existence of header files
> specified by posix?

You seem to be arguing for "let's make all our programs Linux-specific
(and Glibc-specific in many cases)".  Given all the problems you've
seen with cross-compiling, let alone compiling for different OS
platforms, that seems a little odd.

-- Jamie
--
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/