On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 12:57:20PM +0700, Max Khon wrote: > On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 8:55 AM, David O'Brien <obr...@freebsd.org> wrote: > 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. > > Then you need to define what base system is.
Eh? Its the same definition has been for the past 17 years -- that which is in /usr/src. As long as there is a GPL consumer of libreadline in /usr/src, there is no benefit to kicking libreadline out of /usr/src. I understand the anti-GPL sentiment -- I've done my share over the years to help achieve a GPL-free FreeBSD. But until there is a debugger that is anywhere near as capable (and mature) as GDB, we'll have a few GPL bits in /usr/src. I see that as OK -- its is small and contained. Show me a non-GPL consumer of libreadline in /usr/src and I'll do everything I can to have it work with libedit. When I added the libreadline compatibility to libedit, I changed all the non-GPL libreadline uses I knew of to libedit. > We have much more ports that depend on libintl or libglib2 than > libreadline. Should we add these libs to the base system too? Please tell me what consumer of libintl or libglib2 we have in /usr/src. > Also, almost all ports require gmake and autotools to be built. Should we > add them to the base system too? You're now being quite ridiculous. -- -- David (obr...@freebsd.org) _______________________________________________ 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"
