Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 7/31/07, Ag. D. Hatzimanikas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For reference this is what installed with libedit.
>>
>> root:root 755 160628 /usr/lib/libedit.so.0.0.24
>> root:root 755 809 /usr/lib/libedit.la
>> root:root 644 181584 /usr/lib/libedit.a
>> root:root 644 18612 /usr/share/man/man3/editline.3
>> root:root 644 12594 /usr/share/man/man5/editrc.5
>> root:root 644 6771 /usr/include/editline/readline.h
>> root:root 644 6442 /usr/include/histedit.h
>>
>> Do you think that maybe there is a conflict?
>
> There isn't a file conflict with readline. The conflict is that we
> (presumably) prefer readline when it's offered. Say I go to install
> dash, see the optional editline dependency and install that.
> Everything's great. Now I go to install xfsprogs and it will accept
> readline or editline but it takes editline by default (hypothetically,
> haven't checked). I've deviated from the book without knowing it. If I
> hit a bug here, it will be hard to debug since it will be hard to ask
> the right questions ("are you using readline or editline?").
>
>> Do we have to test every of the aforementioned packages, just to
>> include the libedit (even as optional) dependency in Dash?
>
> I don't think we need to test them. We need to find out if they take
> editline in addition to readline. If they do, we need to ensure that
> readline is used.
>
>> If this is the case, then we have to remove it for the time being.
>
> Let's see what others have to say.
I think the policy of omitting editline is valid, but if we do decide to
add it as optional dependencies, we should also add a caution that in
some cases editline conflicts with readline (which is installed in LFS).
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
