Re: Will 2.6 require Python for any configuration ? (CML2)

[Joshua Schmidlkofer]

> Maybe it's just me, but adding a dependency solely for the sake of
> building the kernel doesn't strike me as very clean or elegant.
>

IMHO that is a highly suspect view.  Kernel building is already a hideously 
complicated problem [At least it seems so to me].   I am certainly in favor 
using a more intelligent and capable scripting lang to add capability and 
reduce some of the dependancy & symbol issues. If all we are doing is adding 
a different front end, it's not of much point, but some genuises here have 
streched make + shell to about as far as one can.  So if that can be done 
with make, someone surley can replace all that with Python.  [However, maybe 
I have missed the scope of the inclusion of python]
  Also, I would like to point out that while Python does have a 'flavor of 
the month' look for some people, it is a useable stable solution.  Who 
knows what my supercede it tomorrow, but as a whole it's maturing, and I 
personally use it a TON.   Plus it has a powerful library.  

Side note:
    It took about 10 days for the last kernel compile I did on my 386sx 16 
[whopping 32 megs of ram thought =] [that was a while ago]..   I suspect that 
with python it wouldn't actually take much longer.   Besides, I compile 
kernels for it on something else.