On Tuesday 24 April 2012 15:49:57 Chet Ramey wrote: > On 4/24/12 10:46 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Tuesday 24 April 2012 08:23:04 Chet Ramey wrote: > >> On 4/24/12 12:00 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >>>> OK, so you've stripped the local readline copy out of the source tree? > >>> > >>> yes > >>> > >>>> Then configured it to build with a system readline library > >>>> installation that you remove? > >>> > >>> the system doesn't have readline at all > >> > >> Why? > > > > because it's a small system which has no need for things like readline. > > i don't think this is a terribly unusual use case. > > Sure, there are systems that don't want or need the readline library > installed or things linked to it. That's not unusual. It's not what > we're talking about here. > > What we're talking about is removing about 1 MB of source code > (lib/readline) from the bash source tree *wherever you're building it*. > This doesn't have anything to do with readline being built or installed. > I don't have any doubt that you encountered a build error when you removed > lib/readline from the bash source tree. What I'm wondering is what you > thought you would gain by doing it.
the local copy is stripped in order to detect cases (which often happens in other packages) where headers/funcs are implicitly included and used even when a feature is turned off. like in this case where the local readline headers are used even though i disabled readline. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
