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

[Tom Rini]

On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 02:59:37PM +0200, Jes Sorensen wrote:
> >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Rini <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> Tom> On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 01:18:02AM +0400, Samium Gromoff wrote:
> >> but imagine the X arch hacker does not like python, and
> >> nevertheless needs to port it on arch X.  still fun?
> 
> Tom> Well I know python is endian-clean.  I'd suspect it's even
> Tom> 32/64bit clean.  So it's not a matter of 'port' but compile.  And
> Tom> Linus has done things which have made lots of kernel hackers
> Tom> scratch their head for a while.  (Jump out of this fire and into
> Tom> the min/max macros in 2.4.9 fire to see what I mean).
> 
> Again, please try and do real porting work before you make such silly
> statements. Perl is 32/64 little/big-endian clean ... and still it's
> the absolutely worst app to bring up (even X tends to be easier).

perl is (or was last time I tried it) a PITA because it doesn't have
a real config script.  In my experiance (and I do have a lot here)
apps which use autoconf/et al suck less at porting, as long as you have
autoconf/libtool/et al happy.  Then it usually comes down to poorly
written code.

-- 
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/