On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 07:56:35PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jul 21, 2000, Greg McGary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> This sounds reasonably reasonable :-), but I wonder if people
> >> wouldn't complain about the additional seldom-used code in the
> >> configure script.
>
> > Do people complain about such things?
>
> I've heard people not liking the idea of unrolling some shell loops in
> AC_CHECK_*S. This can really increase the size of a configure script.
I've heard people also complaining about the size of lynx's configure script
even rolled up. Unrolling them will multiply the size several times - I would
not bother to download & use any tool that tried to enforce such a policy.
Here's a sample from one of my build trees (rolled up):
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 99085 Jan 17 2000 cdk-4.9.9-20000117/configure
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 63811 Jan 31 1998 cproto-4.6/configure
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 54913 Mar 19 15:18 ded/configure
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 90184 Jan 15 2000 dialog-0.9a-20000101/configure
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 400789 Jun 2 08:18 lynx2.8.4dev.2d/configure
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 203426 Oct 23 1999 ncurses-5.0-19991023/configure
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 207521 Jul 8 22:40 ncurses-5.1-20000708/configure
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 190101 Mar 19 15:02 td_lib/configure
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 300642 Dec 23 1999 tin-1.5.1/configure
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 229133 Mar 19 14:49 vile-9.1e/configure
--
Thomas E. Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://dickey.his.com
ftp://dickey.his.com
