Am 15.09.20 um 22:22 schrieb Joel Rivera: > Bastian, > > correct me if I'm wrong, but you're suggesting to remove [1] in favor of [2]?
That is right. > 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. If you salvage this package, just close this bug. > 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. Most libedit/editline implementations floating around, including the two mentioned ones stem from the original version from Rich Salz. Therefore, nix might be able to compile with libedit instead. The main difference from [3] is that it needs ncurses. Additionally, the include paths differ. libedit seems to try to be a bit more of a readline drop-in replacement.. The current situation in Debian is the following: We have at least four readline-like implementations in the archive: readline (v8) readline5 which is kept around for license reasons editline libedit I think it would be good to reduce the number of those libraries and apart from the effort to remove editline, I also handed in patches to the readline5 users to build with libedit. The main reason to get rid of editline and readline5 is their orphaned status. But if you want to maintain the package properly after salvaging, please go ahead. > 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 >
