On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 03:00:21PM +1000, Brian May wrote: > 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.) OpenSSL isn't the only package providing SSL functionality, GnuTLS also exists for example. > > > If you have libreadline installed, why would you want libeditline > > > installed to? > > > > 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. > > > 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. > > There are 2 solutions I have seen so far: > > 1. link programs with libreadline instead of libeditline. > * pros: can install both at same time > * cons: cant substitute one for the other without rebuilding. > 1. libreadline and libeditline both install libreadline.so.* > * pros: no source code changes. > * pros: can substitute on for the other at installation time. > * cons: can't install both at the same time. > > (sorry about the broken numbering) > > Maybe we can somehow merge these two solutions? I think you can use update-alternatives to be able to install both libraries. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: jeroen@openprojects
Attachment:
pgprE7Sp8S4Fh.pgp
Description: PGP signature