On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 12:24:07AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > I'm saying "fix it both places, or it obviously is not a
> > > sufficient justification for a decision".
> > >
> > > Or to put it another way "if you are willing to live with
> > > it in one place, why not two?".
> >
> > What on earth are you talking about?
>
> I guess I need to paint a picture...
> It points to a "...stripped down [libcrypt] under '[libcrypt]'"
> that tries to "pretend to be a full version (f.e for [passwd],
> etc.".
>
> I should think the analogy between doing for libreadline
> what FreeBSD _already does_ for libcrypt should be obvious,
> now...
>
> So if you aren't willing to "fix" libcrypt to be the real
> thing under FreeBSD, now that export restrictions have been
> relaxed, I don't think you have any right to complain when
> someone does _exactly the same thing_, making libreadline*
> a symlink to libedit*, since your unwillingness to fix the
> former makes doing that "common, accepted practice".
Okay, now I'm really confused.
a) libcrypt has been "reunified" for 7 months now; Peter did it last
December.
b) Regardless, I'm the one who was talking about making libreadline a
symlink to libedit, I wasn't arguing against it.
Kris
PGP signature
