Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 12:57:20 +0700 From: Max Khon <fjoe@samodelkin.net> To: obrien@freebsd.org, Max Khon <fjoe@samodelkin.net>, freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: removing libreadline from base system Message-ID: <CADe0-4k7=s1WYJ2MV%2Bk0OqrQ22sS345n6=EryBu0C8U-tW1A9w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20111202015537.GB4111@dragon.NUXI.org> References: <CADe0-4kDotyR096Yfv9_pwAw_K6fe2XJ5QUpgkFLE1Q6q4YdmA@mail.gmail.com> <20111202015537.GB4111@dragon.NUXI.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David, On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 8:55 AM, David O'Brien <obrien@freebsd.org> wrote: If you go with (2) above, we'll still have *tons* of ports that want a > libreadline, so we'll just end up growing a port of it and we'll wind up > with a libreadline on the system anyway. Then you need to define what base system is. We have much more ports that depend on libintl or libglib2 than libreadline. Should we add these libs to the base system too? Also, almost all ports require gmake and autotools to be built. Should we add them to the base system too? Max
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADe0-4k7=s1WYJ2MV%2Bk0OqrQ22sS345n6=EryBu0C8U-tW1A9w>