Optional editline dependencies

Dan Nicholson dbn.lists at gmail.com
Wed Aug 1 07:36:51 PDT 2007

On 8/1/07, Randy McMurchy <randy at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
> > 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,
> Not sure how OpenSSH and libedit have some sort of commonality,
> but unless this item is the same as your next item (the new
> active port), I don't understand what you are driving at. Could
> you please clarify (if it is important to the discussion).

Well, it seemed that you were marking down a reason not to use
editline as that it was developed on BSD. I just wanted to point out
that OpenSSH is developed in the same way where it's ported from BSD
to Linux. The point being that we already heavily rely on a package
which is a port to Linux.

> > 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.
> This I did not realize. Thanks for pointing it out. We will need
> to check it out. I do know that most packages that use libedit,
> use the version from SF (at least I think so), and that is no
> good.

I didn't either till Ag posted it, but it makes sense that this would
be worked out. There are quite a few packages that want to use
editline, and it would be surprising that someone wouldn't be making
that happen for the Linux users. In fact, on that guy's editline page,
he lists about 5 other possible editlines (including the dead
Sourceforge one).

> > 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
> I am going on memory. If it really matters (I remember there
> being more than just one post on the subject), we'll need to
> search the archives. I'm not very good at it. Seems you and
> Archaic have both recently posted about some tools you use that
> make searching the Archives easier. I've never used either of
> these tools.

Archaic's firefox plugin has been on the LFS site for a long time. It
just takes your google query and adds the correct site: so that it
drills into the mail archives.


I created a Google Custom Search because I never got very good results
using site: and I customized the search to go straight into the
pipermail archives. The way I found that hit was to put libedit in the
form here:


But it seems that searching on libedit in the Google search box on the
front page of lfs.org got pretty much the same results (which is the
same as using Archaic's plugin). I think Archaic's commit on
lfs-website the other day had the important part: you have to search
on linuxfromscratch.org without the www because that's where the mail
archives are.

> > 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.
> Agreed. We were not on the same page. But at least we've got the
> issue out in the open now. I am not in a position to test, nor
> really even look at this new libedit until tomorrow.

I haven't tested anything yet, and it's probably best to use
Alexander's suggestion: post-6.3. But I'm actually starting to play
now because I've always wanted command history in sftp :)


More information about the blfs-dev mailing list