Randy McMurchy wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote these words on 01/21/06 09:35 CST: > > >>Drop or big warning. There's really no reason to use libedit when >>readline is already installed by default in LFS. > > > Right. And I brought this up because I feel that if we drop it, then > folks will be opening up bugs because they may notice that it is a > dependency not listed in the book. But perhaps that wouldn't really > be something to be concerned about. Additionally, without a warning, > if someone does notice it is a valid dependency, they may try to > install it.
Their distro, their rules. After all the web page is pretty clear that it is supposed to be a drop in replacement for readline. Readline is maintained. The latest version is 2005-12-08. Libedit is not maintained. The last version is listed as a beta and has a 2001 timestamp. I feel the the only reason BLFS should ever use a beta package is if there is no reasonable alternative. This is clearly not the case here. We are under no obligation to even mention beta packages. I would prefer that all mentions of libedit be removed from the book. No warnings necessary. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
