[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87h67zzjdc.fsf@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 11:51:43 +0200
From: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>
To: Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, Petr Vorel <pvorel@...e.cz>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, Dmitry Baryshkov
<dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rob Clark
<robdclark@...il.com>, Dave Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] init/Kconfig: add python3 availability config
On Fri, 22 Nov 2024, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org> wrote:
> Documentation/process/changes.rst
> documents basic tools necessary for building the kernel.
>
> Python3 is listed as "optional" because it is required
> only for some CONFIG options.
>
> If the exact dependency is unclear, it is better to install
> all tools listed in that table.
I think we're slightly in a limbo with the python build dependency. I
think it got initially merged a bit under the radar. And I don't mean to
imply any ill will here, it just didn't get the attention it maybe
should have. The dependency table got updated afterwards.
Now, what's the status for more modules depending on python? I for one
would like to use it for i915.ko, but I'm a bit uneasy about it as long
as it's "optional". Conversely, how many more users would we need to
switch the status from "optional" to "required"?
BR,
Jani.
--
Jani Nikula, Intel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists