Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 11:38:21 +0700 From: Max Khon <fjoe@samodelkin.net> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: removing libreadline from base system Message-ID: <CADe0-4n2w=jqRJBye3dtZ6SLn4fPANh4QsEFE98vGxzkB9bkzQ@mail.gmail.com> 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
Brooks, On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> wrote: > 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. 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. > > The existence of incompatibilities between libedit and libreadline > probably does argue for option (2). Agree. I submitted the patch w/ INTERNALLIB for libreadline for 10.0 exp-run. Max
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADe0-4n2w=jqRJBye3dtZ6SLn4fPANh4QsEFE98vGxzkB9bkzQ>