On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 10:27:05AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 06:38:25AM +0400, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> > > > > Personally, I think it's worth it to get rid of a GNU dependency in
> > > > > the base system, as well as reducing the overall amount of functional
> > > >
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 06:38:25AM +0400, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> > > > Personally, I think it's worth it to get rid of a GNU dependency in
> > > > the base system, as well as reducing the overall amount of functional
> > > > code duplication.
> > >
> > > I don't, particularly since the two pr
Erik Trulsson wrote:
> > Peter MFC'ed it a few weeks ago.
>
> A few days ago is more like it.
>
> (cvs log lib/libcrypto/Makefile gives the following:)
>
> revision 1.24.2.4
> date: 2001/07/16 03:28:26; author: peter; state: Exp; lines: +11 -56
> MFC: unify libscrypt/libdescrypt into libcryp
At 12:24 AM -0700 7/19/01, Terry Lambert wrote:
>I guess I need to paint a picture...
I guess we need to just ignore you on this particular topic.
--
Garance Alistair Drosehn= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Systems Programmer or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Instit
On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 02:01:31AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 01:37:16AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > a) libcrypt has been "reunified" for 7 months now; Peter did it last
> > > December.
> >
> > Someone needs to tell my newly installed 4.3
On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 01:37:16AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > a) libcrypt has been "reunified" for 7 months now; Peter did it last
> > December.
>
> Someone needs to tell my newly installed 4.3 system this.
>
> 4.3-RELEASE _did_ come out after that, right?
>
> I gues
Kris Kennaway wrote:
> a) libcrypt has been "reunified" for 7 months now; Peter did it last
> December.
Someone needs to tell my newly installed 4.3 system this.
4.3-RELEASE _did_ come out after that, right?
I guess this wasn't MFC'ed? It seems to _still_ not have
been MFC'ed in my 4.3-STABLE
On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 12:24:07AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > I'm saying "fix it both places, or it obviously is not a
> > > sufficient justification for a decision".
> > >
> > > Or to put it another way "if you are willing to live with
> > > it in one place, why not two?".
> >
> > What on
Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > > > I vote this too. We don't need stripped down libreadline under
> > > > > 'libreadline' name pretend to be full version (f.e. for
> > > > > autoconf, etc.)
[ ... remember this sentence; it answers your question ... ]
> > I'm saying "fix it both places, or it obvious
hi, there!
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> >Personally, I think it's worth it to get rid of a GNU dependency
> >in the base system, as well as reducing the overall amount of
> >functional code duplication.
>
> I may be misunderstanding what you mean here, but I don't think
> we
On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 10:17:25AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> > > > I vote this too. We don't need stripped down libreadline under
> > > > 'libreadline' name pretend to be full version (f.e. for autoconf, etc.)
> > >
> > > The cryptography libraries have set a precedent h
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> > > I vote this too. We don't need stripped down libreadline under
> > > 'libreadline' name pretend to be full version (f.e. for autoconf, etc.)
> >
> > The cryptography libraries have set a precedent here. I
> > could argue the same thing about the presence of a full DES
>
Terry Lambert wrote:
> "Andrey A. Chernov" wrote:
> > > > Okay. So it sounds like there's a "shim" to libedit which would be
> > > > the API replacement for libreadline. Could we call that something
> > > > cute like 'libreadlinele' ('le' for 'libedit') or 'libeditrl', but
> > > > leave libread
"Andrey A. Chernov" wrote:
> > > Okay. So it sounds like there's a "shim" to libedit which would be
> > > the API replacement for libreadline. Could we call that something
> > > cute like 'libreadlinele' ('le' for 'libedit') or 'libeditrl', but
> > > leave libreadline as a separate port?
> >
> >
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:23:43 +0400, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 10:27:14 -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 01:23:44PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> >
> > > Okay. So it sounds like there's a "shim" to libedit which would be
> > > the API replacemen
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 10:27:14 -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 01:23:44PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>
> > Okay. So it sounds like there's a "shim" to libedit which would be
> > the API replacement for libreadline. Could we call that something
> > cute like 'libread
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 01:23:44PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> Okay. So it sounds like there's a "shim" to libedit which would be
> the API replacement for libreadline. Could we call that something
> cute like 'libreadlinele' ('le' for 'libedit') or 'libeditrl', but
> leave libreadline as
At 9:40 AM -0700 7/17/01, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 17, 2001, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>
>> Is there some way freebsd could switch base-system components to
>> use libedit, and then turn libreadline into a port for any other
>> ports which need libreadline?
>
>I think hacking gdb to use
On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 12:23:28PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> I may be misunderstanding what you mean here, but I don't think
> we should replace libreadline with libedit. However, I do find
> this very interesting, as some of my friends and I have a program
> that we're going to switch f
At 3:19 AM -0700 7/16/01, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>Hmm. We could easily provide a libreadline port for ports to
>use, as long as libedit does everything that's needed for the
>in-tree users (are there any others apart from bc and gdb?)
>The only danger is if future versions of those grow the need
>t
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 12:00:55 -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 11:16:12AM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > < said:
> >
> > > Personally, I think it's worth it to get rid of a GNU dependency in
> > > the base system, as well as reducing the overall amount of functional
> >
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 12:41:18 -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> The vinum patch hilights the problem that the new "libreadline" (just
> a symlink to libedit) exposes new symbols which may conflict with an
> existing program. I'm not sure how to deal with this.
Can of worms opened, as I warn yo
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 01:31:27AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Fetch the following file and unpack it in /usr/src; it will overwrite
> the contents of lib/libedit. You should also disable libreadline in
> gnu/lib/Makefile (and might want to remove /usr/include/readline/* to
> make sure it pick
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 11:16:12AM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < said:
>
> > Personally, I think it's worth it to get rid of a GNU dependency in
> > the base system, as well as reducing the overall amount of functional
> > code duplication.
>
> I don't, particularly since the two programs wh
< said:
> Personally, I think it's worth it to get rid of a GNU dependency in
> the base system, as well as reducing the overall amount of functional
> code duplication.
I don't, particularly since the two programs which use it are already
GNU software, so you haven't actually bought any additio
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 02:33:00PM +0400, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> > It doesn't actually impliment all of libreadline - just it's most
> > common uses. Last time I checked libedit couldn't emulate readline's
> > callback mode. I looked at implimenting the callback stuff, but it
> > would be rea
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 10:33:51 +0100, David Malone wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 01:31:27AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> > I've just finished syncing up our libedit to the version in NetBSD,
> > which includes a number of bugfixes, but perhaps more interestingly it
> > can function as a d
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 10:33:51AM +0100, David Malone wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 01:31:27AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>
> > I've just finished syncing up our libedit to the version in NetBSD,
> > which includes a number of bugfixes, but perhaps more interestingly it
> > can function as a
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 01:31:27AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> for GNU libreadline (unfortunately it's not binary compatible with our
> present libedit). I've tested this so far with bc and gdb and it
..or source compatible, apparently. I thought I'd tested this with
the ftp client, but I mu
On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 01:31:27AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> I've just finished syncing up our libedit to the version in NetBSD,
> which includes a number of bugfixes, but perhaps more interestingly it
> can function as a drop-in (apparently binary compatible) replacement
> for GNU libreadlin
Hi all,
I've just finished syncing up our libedit to the version in NetBSD,
which includes a number of bugfixes, but perhaps more interestingly it
can function as a drop-in (apparently binary compatible) replacement
for GNU libreadline (unfortunately it's not binary compatible with our
present li
31 matches
Mail list logo
