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

Dan Nicholson dbn.lists at gmail.com
Tue Jul 31 13:26:56 PDT 2007


On 7/31/07, Ag. D. Hatzimanikas <a.hatzim at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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?

There isn't a file conflict with readline. The conflict is that we
(presumably) prefer readline when it's offered. Say I go to install
dash, see the optional editline dependency and install that.
Everything's great. Now I go to install xfsprogs and it will accept
readline or editline but it takes editline by default (hypothetically,
haven't checked). I've deviated from the book without knowing it. If I
hit a bug here, it will be hard to debug since it will be hard to ask
the right questions ("are you using readline or editline?").

> Do we have to test every of the aforementioned packages, just to
> include the libedit (even as optional) dependency in Dash?

I don't think we need to test them. We need to find out if they take
editline in addition to readline. If they do, we need to ensure that
readline is used.

> If this is the case, then we have to remove it for the time being.

Let's see what others have to say.

--
Dan



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list