Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 12 Apr 2015 16:35:39 -0500 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3 V2] time: move timeconst.h into include/generated | From | Rob Landley <> |
| |
On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 7:13 AM, Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org> wrote: > kernel/time/timeconst.h is moved to include/generated/ and generated in > an early build stage by top level Kbuild. This allows using timeconst.h > in an earlier stage of the build. > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>
Sigh, I'll adjust my patch:
http://landley.net/hg/aboriginal/file/1698/sources/patches/linux-noperl-timeconst.patch
Backstory: Peter Anvin added perl to the kernel build in 2.6.25 and something like the 9th time I submitted patches to remove it, several years later when it looked like they'd finally go in, he submitted a competing patch to one of my "just do this in C and shell" patch series to instead add a dependency on the 'bc" tool, which is not in busybox, wasn't in the linux from scratch or buildroot or openembedded builds (everybody had to add it after his patch went in to keep building the kernel), and which is actually hard to implement in a posix compliant way for an embedded environment because it's defined as requiring arbitrary precision math (all timeconst calculation needs is 64 bit math, I.E. long long) and it's defined as being capable of doing things like fractional exponentiation at arbitrary precision (fixed point, I think).
I don't know why Peter is on a crusade to stamp out simple build environments. He added perl as a build dependency to every tool he maintained at the same time (not just the kernel but also klibc and his bootloader), and then when he couldn't defend perl he added a new dependency to break existing simple/audited build environments.
When I objected to him about the perl he said I was engaged in an uninteresting "academic" exercise. (https://lkml.org/lkml/2008/2/15/548) Oh yes, a simple auditable build environment totally has no real world consequences:
http://www.kith.org/journals/jed/2015/03/15/15043.html
Yup, none at all. Snowden proved that, clearly. (And he was totally a one-off, it's not like there was Manning or Daniel Ellsberg or Mark Felt before him...)
Sigh. Don't mind me, I'll update my local patch, once again.
Rob
| |