[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200912162209.29744.rob@landley.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:09:28 -0600
From: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>,
Andrew Isaacson <adi@...are.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: CONFIG_KPROBES=y build requires gawk
On Wednesday 16 December 2009 20:43:01 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 12/16/2009 05:39 PM, Roland Dreier wrote:
> > Is there any reason not to apply the patch below, to allow more awk
> > implementations to be used? After all, it's not like we're going to put
> > non-ASCII characters into the map file...
>
> I guess the question is if it will break under any other circumstances,
> but I guess we can find those when we get to them.
>
> There was a long discussion about the use of awk on IRC today.
> Apparently mawk, in particular, is actively broken, because the
> maintainer believe that POSIX is crap. There are quite a few issues
> with it, according to reports.
if the kernel specifies posix, and that implementation doesn't do posix, then
that implementation doesn't build the kernel. Blacklisting known broken
implementations makes a certain amount of sense.
> We need a sane scripting language available to the kernel build, and
> given all the problems we have had with different versions or even just
> sometimes different builds of sh, awk, and even bc -- plus the fact that
> those utilities just don't necessarily do what we want makes it very
> frustrating.
1) Posix exists for a reason.
2) Busybox implements what the kernel has needed to build. (I test this every
release, and I fix it where necessary.)
> Personally I think a dependency on Perl is better than the
> mess we're in; I understand other people disagree.
Vehemently.
> What is definitely
> not acceptable, however, is the status quo. The situation is, quite
> frankly, ridiculous enough that perhaps the right thing to do is to
> write a small scripting engine and bundle it with the kernel. Something
> that does what we need it to do, but is only one implementation and
> something we can extend at will if need be.
*shrug* That's one way to avoid environmental dependencies.
> -hpa
Rob
--
Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists