Optional editline dependencies

Ag. D. Hatzimanikas a.hatzim at gmail.com
Wed Aug 1 07:41:53 PDT 2007


On Wed, Aug 01, at 09:15 Randy McMurchy wrote:
> 
> Not arguing, but what package is actually linked to libedit (I'm
> curious more than anything)? Some folks have the wrong impression
> that because something is listed in the output of ldd for a particular
> binary, it is used by that binary. That is an incorrect assumption.
> 
> For example, just because libedit is listed in ldd output of sftp,
> it does *not* mean it is used (not even pulled in directly) by
> sftp. It only means that one of *any* of the packages linked to
> sftp is linked directly to libedit.
> 
> Again, this is not to refute that we must look into the new port
> of libedit, I only wrote this as an FYI about the misconception of
> what ldd output means.
> 

I can't comment about this part, because I am not really sure, but for
the record, I always thought that every package that linked into a binary
is being used directly or indirectly. But I could be wrong.
It's an interesting subject and I would like to be sure, because
there is some confusion here.

Another thing that I noticed before in the output I posted, is that 
(although in my setup it seems right, because I don't have separate 
partitions), and because we place the dash binary into /bin (root partition),
so _if_ we decide to keep libedit as dependency, then the note/warning 
should consist of two parts.

a. The actual warning about the possible conflicts with readline and
b. That if someone is going to use editline should place the libedit 
libraries into /lib, if /usr is in a different partition.

Just something I ought to mention.



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list