[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects

From: Glenn McGrath
Subject: Re: proposal to fork the build-tools projects
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 08:51:41 +1000

On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 15:57:46 -0400 (EDT)
Pavel Roskin <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hello, Tom!
> 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.

Busybox can almost parse configure scripts (sed needs work), its designed
to be very compact.

(im not an expert on autotools and this may sound simplistic, but FWIW)

Ive often wondered why ./configure has to be a script, i understand it has
to be portable, but couldnt the build tools compile a binary that calls on
 a c library that provides most of the functionality.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]