Compiled-in modules in static shell

Compiled-in modules in static shell

[Andrej Borsenkow]

Is there any reason, why not all modules are compiled in for static
shell (assuming, they can be compiled as found by configure)? I ask,
because on Cygwin in default installation some pretty useful odules are
missing (e.g. zpty - thus making some tests impossible). It means, that
static and dynamic version are not the same.

configure for a long time has --enable-omit-modules parameter that can
be used to turn off selected modules. What about compiling all modules
by default - if anybody does not want it he can always turn off selected
modules.

BTW I prefer --disable-modules form. It looks much better. And,
probably, we could generalize it to

--enable-modules=all
--enable-modules=mod1,mod2,...
--disable-modules=mod1,mod2,...

eliminating need to edit some files in distribution.

-andrej

Have a nice DOS!
B >>

Re: Compiled-in modules in static shell

[Peter Stephenson]

> BTW I prefer --disable-modules form. It looks much better. And,
> probably, we could generalize it to
> 
> --enable-modules=all
> --enable-modules=mod1,mod2,...
> --disable-modules=mod1,mod2,...
> 
> eliminating need to edit some files in distribution.

autoconf doesn't support this.  --disable-modules is equivalent to
--enable-modules=no.  See --enable-omit-modules, however.  autoconf seems
to be deliberately set up to make it hard to tweak features as opposed to
turn them on or off, goodness knows why.

-- 
Peter Stephenson <pws@cambridgesiliconradio.com>
Cambridge Silicon Radio, Unit 300, Science Park, Milton Road,
Cambridge, CB4 0XL, UK                          Tel: +44 (0)1223 392070

Re: Compiled-in modules in static shell

[Bart Schaefer]

On Jun 23,  1:50pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
} Subject: Re: Compiled-in modules in static shell
}
} > BTW I prefer --disable-modules form. It looks much better.
} 
} autoconf doesn't support this. [...] autoconf seems to be deliberately
} set up to make it hard to tweak features as opposed to turn them on or
} off, goodness knows why.

Excerpt from "info autoconf":
-----------------------------
     --enable-FEATURE[=ARG]
     --disable-FEATURE

   These options allow users to choose which optional features to build
and install.  `--enable-FEATURE' options should never make a feature
behave differently or cause one feature to replace another.  They
should only cause parts of the program to be built rather than left out.
-----------------------------

In autoconf terminology, every module is its own FEATURE, and you are
supposed to have to turn each one on or off with a separate option.

This is undoubtedly an RMS-ism; one look at the section titles in the
"History" chapter of the autoconf info should give some idea of the
futility of further explanation.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com

Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net   

Re: Compiled-in modules in static shell

[Bart Schaefer]

On Jun 23,  3:34pm, Andrej Borsenkow wrote:
} Subject: Compiled-in modules in static shell
}
} Is there any reason, why not all modules are compiled in for static
} shell (assuming, they can be compiled as found by configure)?

The main reason is to avoid producing an enormous executable.  Average
processor speed, memory, and disk capacity have all increased by a
factor of at least 4 since the zsh module system was introduced, and
operating systems have gotten better at running multiple copies of the
same executable, too, so maybe this isn't as much of an issue any more.
Still, the idea is not to slow zsh down with stuff that isn't essential,
particularly (as with the files module) if the same can be accomplished
with external programs.

Also keep in mind that the module system was originally intended only
to handle adding builtin commands, so by definition anything you could
do with a module you could also do with an external program (or a shell
function).

} I ask, because on Cygwin in default installation some pretty useful
} odules are missing (e.g. zpty - thus making some tests impossible).

I think zpty in particular is left out because it's the newest and least
likely to compile successfully on a given platform.

Even if we don't compile in all modules by default everywhere, there are
probably certain platforms (cygwin being one of the best examples) where
more of the modules ought to be included.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com

Zsh: http://www.zsh.org | PHPerl Project: http://phperl.sourceforge.net