On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Brooks Davis <> 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

_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to ""

Reply via email to