On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 10:33:51AM +0100, David Malone wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2001 at 01:31:27AM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > I've just finished syncing up our libedit to the version in NetBSD,
> > which includes a number of bugfixes, but perhaps more interestingly it
> > can function as a drop-in (apparently binary compatible) replacement
> > for GNU libreadline (unfortunately it's not binary compatible with our
> > present libedit).
> It doesn't actually impliment all of libreadline - just it's most
> common uses. Last time I checked libedit couldn't emulate readline's
> callback mode. I looked at implimenting the callback stuff, but it
> would be really hard to do properly 'cos of how libedit is structured.
> (In the end I hacked something together, but it's really ugly.)

Hmm.  We could easily provide a libreadline port for ports to use, as
long as libedit does everything that's needed for the in-tree users
(are there any others apart from bc and gdb?)  The only danger is if
future versions of those grow the need to use other parts of the API
which we don't implement.  The upside is that both the FreeBSD and
NetBSD communities would be facing the same problem, meaning greater
developer power to implement new features.

Personally, I think it's worth it to get rid of a GNU dependency in
the base system, as well as reducing the overall amount of functional
code duplication.


PGP signature

Reply via email to