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. 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). -- Brooks
Description: PGP signature