On 20/08/2005, at 11:25 PM, Grobian wrote:
...
>
> Moral of the story: GNU is not Linux.  Ehm, no.
> - libedit appears to be a 'good enough' replacement for some tools,  
> good enough to make >=readline-4.1 applications compile
> - libedit is in portage
> - libedit is supplied with OSX
> - libedit is even completer (with readline.h) supplied with Apple's  
> SDKs.
> - there unfortunately is no virtual/readline in town, so emerging  
> libedit doesn't give you readline, while in fact it does.

If libedit really is a complete replacement for readline (they  
provide the same functionality and at least compatible symlinks) then  
it should be a virtual. Currently the libedit ebuild doesn't install  
any compatibility symlinks or the headers, which means that on Gentoo  
they aren't really virtuals at the moment.

Making them a virtual is probably a subject for broader discussion  
(making libedit install readline compatibility, make libedit/readline  
block and make them provide="virtual/readline").

> - assumming we would just lie some more to portage about what it  
> has and what it doesn't have, we would have to add the readline.h  
> file to /usr/include and make a package.provided.
>

(Because I don't know how this would be done) - where/how would we  
add readline.h to /usr/include?

> I think all is dirty, but not being able to compile libxml because  
> the testing program -- which a regular user will never use -- uses  
> readline for its --shell mode which it doesn't even use in make  
> check stinks too.
>

Well making libedit/readline virtuals (if they really are) isn't  
dirty at all - it'd be the right solution. Not so sure about moving  
readline.h around...

Regards,
Mike


-- 
gentoo-osx@g.o mailing list