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

Re: libreadline

On Sun, 2002-05-05 at 11:38, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > 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).
> This is not acceptible, because I want the ability to have *both*
> libraries.

Just curious: Why?

If you have libreadline installed, why would you want libeditline
installed to?

(remembering of course you can install libreadline in place of
libeditline on your own systems).

Of course, throughout this discussion I am assuming that libeditline is
fully ABI compatible, something I haven't investigated myself. I would
be surprised if it is not the case.

Also, I seem the package description of libeditline says that it has
fewer features. Any ideas what features it lacks?
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: