Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 00:17:16 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Max Khon <fjoe@samodelkin.net> Subject: Re: removing libreadline from base system Message-ID: <20111202081716.GA23789@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <20111202024112.GC95365@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <CADe0-4kDotyR096Yfv9_pwAw_K6fe2XJ5QUpgkFLE1Q6q4YdmA@mail.gmail.com> <20111202015537.GB4111@dragon.NUXI.org> <20111202024112.GC95365@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 08:41:12PM -0600, Brooks Davis wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 05:55:37PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:02:23PM +0700, Max Khon wrote: > > > It is possible to build and link our in-tree gdb & friends with libedit > > > after r228114. > > > The remaining question is what to do with libreadline: > > > 1) just build & link gdb with libedit > > > OR > > > 2) re-import libreadline from gdb sources and build INTERNALLIB version of > > > it that is never installed and is linked only to gdb > > > > Max, > > What is the value in doing either? > > > > libreadline isn't infecting any non-GPL code turning into GPLv2. > > > > Some of use have fancy .input files, and quite frankly the vi mode of > > libedit still doesn't work quite the same as libreadline. > > > > 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. > > We are rapidly approaching the point where it will be practical to > remove all GPL code from the base system (assuming we are willing to > require external toolchains for some architectures) and a number of us > are pushing to make this a reality for 10.0. Agreed and known. If the application(s) using libreadline weren't already GPL I wouldn't have spoken up. When I added the libreadline compatibility to libedit, I changed all the non-GPL libreadline uses to libedit. > If we have people willing > to do the work now--as Max seems to be--then we might as well deal with > the ports fallout from the removal of libreadline sooner rather than > later. I guess this is the real agenda? To get ports to depend on an /usr/ports' version of libreadline? If so, can it please wait 6 months until we've gotten thru the current nightmare that /usr/ports is on FreeBSD-CURRENT? Until this November that most ports would not build on -current, one still cannot 'pkg_add -r' anything, etc... Right now, I don't think we need another thing different between FreeBSD pre-10 and 10 that will be a /usr/ports headache. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111202081716.GA23789>