X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
From: rugxulo AT gmail DOT com
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: bloated GNU [ef]grep binaries (current/2.4 and beta/2.5.1)
Date: 11 Sep 2006 16:48:02 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <1158018482.055830.177940@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.13.115.246
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1158018487 4731 127.0.0.1 (11 Sep 2006 23:48:07 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 23:48:07 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.6) Gecko/20060728 Firefox/1.5.0.6,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse AT google DOT com
Injection-Info: i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.13.115.246;
   posting-account=qvj7NA0AAABallzf-E3FtUCXEd65I-J8
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Why is GNU grep (either current/2.4 or beta/2.5.1) not using "ln -s"
for fgrep, egrep binaries? Wouldn't that be smaller? I've seen several
references to that being a good idea, but in practice it seems to not
be used. Any particular reason?   :-/

Just curious, especially regarding the latest beta (where uncompressed,
they are 1.0 MB each, and compressed with UPX --brute are still pretty
large [706k each]. Yes, I know, PCRE bloats it up, among other things.
Not trying to complain, just wondering.

P.S. DJ, it might lower your bandwidth expenses if you use AdvanceCOMP
tools to auto-recompress your .ZIPs with the 7-ZIP Deflate method
(results in slightly smaller files):

http://advancemame.sourceforge.net/comp-readme.html