I wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:52 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I think it's Debian's problem, not ours, if that doesn't work. It is
>>> not unreasonable for a package to probe existence of a library function
>>> at configure time. It's up to them to make sure that the headers match
>>> the actual library.
>> That seems like an unhelpful attitude. Debian is a mainstream
>> platform, and no doubt feels that they have important reasons for what
>> they are doing.
Actually, this argument is based on a false premise anyhow. I took
a look into Debian's source package, and AFAICS they are not doing
anything as weird as a run-time substitution. They are just filling
the build environment with libedit-dev not libreadline-dev. So that
is certainly a supported configuration from our side, and if there
is any header-to-library discrepancy then it's just a simple bug
in the libedit package.
(Maybe at one time they were doing something weird; I didn't look
back further than the current sources for PG 12.)
regards, tom lane
