[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: libreadline

On Sun, 2002-05-05 at 10:38, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> Am I right that you actually want to have libeditline provide
> libreadline, but a simple Provide: won't work here because versioned
> provides don't work?

Hmmmm... Interesting point.

If libeditline conflicts, provides libreadline, and has
/usr/lib/libreadline.so*, then it would be 100% ABI compatible, and
programs would be able to use either. (you could argue that it isn't
currently 100% ABI compatible due to the different name).

Just some issues you might encounter though:
        * package depends  (For non-GPL packages) need to prefer
          libeditline over libreadline (my understanding only).
        * version provides won't help; the version numbers are
          completely different.
        * All programs would have to use libeditline if installed, even
          those that are capable of using libreadline. This might be
          good for some people, not so good for others.
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: