Pavel Roskin wrote: > For example, there are two libraries, A and B, and only one can be used. > There are at least (not counting --with-A=/path/to/A) 2 possibilities for > each library (present and absent) and 3 possibilities for each option, > (--with-A, -without-A, no option), which makes 36 combinations. There are > no ready macros to implement user-friendly logic, i.e. printing something > like "you don't want to use A, but I cannot find B".
Actually, you need CPPFLAGS and LDFLAGS for each library, which may or may not be derivable from --with-A=/path/to. So, my ``withlib'' macro generator constructs *three* macros per library, each having three states. Yummy stuff. But, unless I'm missing something, this is not the proposal. > If you are going to make a fork, add a well-behaving shell to the > requirements and leave out everything else. I know a project with > configure script longer than 500k. Uncompressed sources of ash with > function support are smaller than that. Mine is 400K -- and it is a console program. Plus, I have two of the silly things in my distribution, yielding a 740K total. Anyway, a base package would be a well-behaving shell, a C compiler and make. Tom seems resistent on a backfill library of headers and library functions, though it would seem to be that assuming the library + headers for all packages above "base" would make configury simpler: backfill-config || exit 1 Heck, make that the default behavior for configure :-)
