Brooks, On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Brooks Davis <bro...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> What is the value in doing either? > > > > libreadline isn't infecting any non-GPL code turning into GPLv2. > > > > Some of use have fancy .input files, and quite frankly the vi mode of > > libedit still doesn't work quite the same as libreadline. > > > > If you go with (2) above, we'll still have *tons* of ports that want a > > libreadline, so we'll just end up growing a port of it and we'll wind up > > with a libreadline on the system anyway. > > We are rapidly approaching the point where it will be practical to > remove all GPL code from the base system (assuming we are willing to > require external toolchains for some architectures) and a number of us > are pushing to make this a reality for 10.0. If we have people willing > to do the work now--as Max seems to be--then we might as well deal with > the ports fallout from the removal of libreadline sooner rather than > later. > > The existence of incompatibilities between libedit and libreadline > probably does argue for option (2). Agree. I submitted the patch w/ INTERNALLIB for libreadline for 10.0 exp-run. Max _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
