Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > > > I vote this too. We don't need stripped down libreadline under
> > > > > 'libreadline' name pretend to be full version (f.e. for
> > > > > autoconf, etc.)

[ ... remember this sentence; it answers your question ... ]

> > 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...

The libcrypt* in /usr/lib is a symlink.

It points to a "...stripped down [libcrypt] under '[libcrypt]'"
that tries to "pretend to be a full version (f.e for [passwd],

I should think the analogy between doing for libreadline
what FreeBSD _already does_ for libcrypt should be obvious,

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".

-- Terry

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to