linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/2] docs: changes: better document Python needs

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: <20250729154437.6cbd2788@sal.lan>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 15:44:37 +0200
From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Laurent Pinchart
 <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>, Linux Doc Mailing List
 <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 workflows@...r.kernel.org, Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/2] docs: changes: better document Python needs

Em Tue, 29 Jul 2025 13:45:26 +0300
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com> escreveu:

> On Mon, 28 Jul 2025, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+huawei@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Considering the above, for me it seems that the bus already departed:
> > there are several cases where Python is required during build time.  
> 
> FWIW, if it was up to me, I'd make Python 3+ a non-optional build
> dependency. I'd also forget about any Python 2 backward compat stuff.

I don't think we should do much effort to support Python 2, but it comes
almost for free: only shebang needs to be different, and, if the comments
inside the doc contains non-utf8 chars, an encoding line.

The current tools during Kernel build currently supports it (again,
except for shebang).

Anyway, from my side I'm happy either way.

> I would find it very useful for code/header generation during build
> time, instead of having to resort to C hostprogs. Similar to what MSM is
> doing.
> 
> That said, I know there's going to be people vehemently opposed.

Fine from my side ;-) There are some precedents here, so I guess it
should be up to each subsystem to decide using it or not.

> > So, adding a "depends on TOOL_PYTHON" doesn't seem to be trivial.  
> 
> Agreed. Forget about that idea.
> 
> 
> BR,
> Jani.
> 
>