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: