Bastian, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're suggesting to remove [1] in favor of [2]?
I've been trying to update editline to the fork that seems to have been evolved from the original debian sources at [3]. My interest in particular is due to that is a dependency of the Nix package manager [4], currently the debian package of Nix is trying to work around the situation by adding support to readline (but is not complete and it seems that the upstream project is considering to stop/revert the integration with it). You can get the additional context from the emails that I sent to debian-mentors like a month ago [5], and the other one to debian-devel [6], the maintainer (Sam Hocevar) seems to be on vacation or simply is not responsive. I'm starting to consider to salvage the package, but that idea conflicts with the current proposal of this bug report. Currently a debian source package of the updated editline is part of the upsteam repo [7] (based on the original one in debian sources), so is mostly a matter to be integrated in debian. Do you have any opinions this situation? I do not know more about libedit and compatibility with the newer editline, I'm only trying to integrate the dependency that the upstream project (Nix) seems to favor the most. Thanks, -- Joel Rivera [1]: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/editline [2]: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/libedit [3]: https://github.com/troglobit/editline [4]: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/nix [5]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2020/08/msg00096.html [6]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2020/08/msg00187.html [7]: https://github.com/troglobit/editline/tree/master/debian
