Optional editline dependencies [Was Re: r6993 - in trunk/BOOK: . introduction/welcome postlfs/shells]

Dan Nicholson dbn.lists at gmail.com
Wed Aug 1 06:48:40 PDT 2007


On 8/1/07, Randy McMurchy <randy at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> > 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).
>
> I would prefer if we don't list libedit as a dependency. libedit
> is really designed for BSD systems. And as has been mentioned
> elsewhere, breaks other packages (some of them very badly).

Two things I think should be noted here. First, just because it's
designed on BSD and ported to Linux later doesn't mean it won't work
here. OpenSSH works the exact same way, and the opposite happens all
the time, too. The primary reason it's designed on BSD is because of
the non-GPL license.

Second, there is a very active port, pointed to in Ag's commit, that's
different from the Sourceforge version which is ancient. It'd be
interesting to know if the past breakage still occurs with this
version.

> We've had this discussion, and it was determined that the best
> thing to do was simply not list libedit as a dependency.

Any chance you can point to the old discussion? The only one I can find is here:

http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-dev/2006-March/014048.html

Points 4 and 5 are not true using this port:

http://www.thrysoee.dk/editline/

Now, I'm still not opposed to keeping it out of the book, but I want
to make sure we're on the same page here.

--
Dan



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list