Optional editline dependencies [Was Re: r6993 - in trunk/BOOK: . introduction/welcome postlfs/shells]
Ag. D. Hatzimanikas
a.hatzim at gmail.com
Tue Jul 31 13:02:17 PDT 2007
On Tue, Jul 31, at 12:42 Dan Nicholson wrote:
> On 7/31/07, ag at linuxfromscratch.org <ag at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> > + <bridgehead renderas="sect4">Optional</bridgehead>
> > + <para role="optional"><ulink url="http://www.thrysoee.dk/editline/">libedit</ulink>
> > + (command line editor library)</para>
> We have to be careful here. In the past (can't recall specifics now),
> installing editline caused problems with some packages that we'd
> prefer to be using readline. The "solution" has been just to not
> mention editline in the book.
> I don't mind having editline mentioned, and, in cases like dash, it
> may provide the only means of line editing. The issue arises that you
> install editline and then it causes a regression building another
> package which would otherwise use readline. According to my specs,
> there are quite a few BLFS packages that use readline:
> I think these should be audited for editline conflicts before we can
> start mentioning it again in the book. There may be others which I
> don't build, too. I don't think this would be too hard, though. We may
> find that the previous conflicts have been resolved.
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?
Do we have to test every of the aforementioned packages, just to
include the libedit (even as optional) dependency in Dash?
If this is the case, then we have to remove it for the time being.
More information about the blfs-dev