"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Even if we use the readline module from gnulib, we have to > > envelop the add_history calls with #if HAVE_LIBREADLINE...#endif > > pairs. > > Yes, or perhaps cleaner: add a AC_CHECK_FUNC(add_history) to > configure.ac, and make sure the test code links to any libreadline > found by gnulib. Then wrap the calls to add_history around #if > HAVE_ADD_HISTORY. > > Nitpick, that should be HAVE_LIBHISTORY, there is no guarantee that > add_history is part of libreadline. And the check should check for > add_history in libreadline _and_ libhistory.
Ah, right. I forgot that add_history is in libhistory. > Another option would be to add the entire libreadline to the gnulib > module, so that it really does provide a add_history replacement as > well. But the libreadline code was rather ugly last time I > checked, so it may be difficult. > > Sounds like a terrible idea to put non-trivial code into gnulib, it > isn't supposed to be a dumping group for everything in the GNU > project... gnulib already contains some non-trivial code like argp, *printf, regex. Anyway, I guess it is up to the gnulib maintainers to decide. A question for InetUtils would be whether libreadline should be a hard or soft dependency. /Simon _______________________________________________ bug-inetutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-inetutils
