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

Re: libreadline

Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au> writes:

G> On Sun, 2002-05-05 at 14:19, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Suppose the proposal is enacted.  If it is, then I essentially *can't*
> > have libreadline on my system unless I refuse to have ssl-using
> > applications.  (Given that having -dev libraries is important to me.)
> The GPL only applies when distributing packages, you can do what you
> like with your own system.

Except that the proposal would involve, essentially, a *conflict*
between libedit and libreadline.  That certainly does affect me.

> > Perhaps I might maintain a package that uses (because of licensing
> > restrictions or other problems) libeditline.
> If the ABI is compatible, then this shouldn't be a problem.

As I pointed out, licensing issues may make it important to have both
libraries on a system.  Some programs can only be linked against
libeditline, but I may prefer libreadline for non-API-related issues.
(Remember, these two libraries could have the same API and yet
importantly different user interfaces.)  So I would want to use
libeditline when I must, and libreadline when I can.  

> > Perhaps I want to make my entire system available as a place to get
> > the whole system from.
> Maybe it is a problem if you really want libreadline and also want to
> distribute it.

Yep.  That's what I mean by "make my entire system available".

>         1. link programs with libreadline instead of libeditline.
>         * pros: can install both at same time
>         * cons: cant substitute one for the other without rebuilding.

I think you have this backwards, right?  You mean "link programs with
libeditline instead of libreadline", right?

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

Reply to: