Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 03:16:55 +0300 (EEST) From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: ache@nagual.pp.ru, kris@obsecurity.org Cc: drosih@rpi.edu, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: libedit replacement for libreadline Message-ID: <200107180016.f6I0Gok01627@mail.uic-in.net> In-Reply-To: <20010718002343.A30891@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:23:43 +0400, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 10:27:14 -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 01:23:44PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> >
> > > Okay. So it sounds like there's a "shim" to libedit which would be
> > > the API replacement for libreadline. Could we call that something
> > > cute like 'libreadlinele' ('le' for 'libedit') or 'libeditrl', but
> > > leave libreadline as a separate port?
> >
> > How about 'libedit'? :) I could live with that; it's just some
> > makefile changes.
>
> I vote this too. We don't need stripped down libreadline under
> 'libreadline' name pretend to be full version (f.e. for autoconf, etc.)
This idea was certainly crossing my mind too. This way we would insure
ourserves from a number of weird problems associated with having two
version of libreadline.{a,so} and appropriate similarly named headers
in /usr and /usr/local. Ports that can work with libeditNG then could
be properly tailored to link with it instead of GNU libreadline. The
only drawback here is that authors of tools, which need to be linkable
with both libeditNG and GNU libreadline (think about vinum) will have to
do some black #ifdef magick, but that's life...
-Maxim
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200107180016.f6I0Gok01627>