Simon Josefsson wrote: > Do you think a "readline" module such as the above would be a > candidate for gnulib?
For application that only use this main entrypoint, yes. But other applications need to customize the library's behaviour (rl_basic_word_break_characters, rl_basic_quote_characters, rl_completer_quote_characters, rl_completion_entry_function, rl_readline_name, calls to rl_add_defun etc.). Do you want to provide all these symbols? > Alternatively, how about packaging the entire readline library as a > gnulib module? It is about 20kloc, but some of it appear to already > be part of gnulib, e.g., xmalloc. I haven't dared to look at the code > quality. That library weighs 175 KB of binary code. Its source is ANSI C, meanwhile. The bigger problem with having it in gnulib is that its maintainer does not favour open/collaborative development. Also, having it in gnulib would mean that the code would reside in several packages and could be linked statically into several applications - which is contrary to the benefits that shared libraries bring (namely 1. don't waste RAM, 2. ability to upgrade the library without relinking the programs). Bruno _______________________________________________ bug-gnulib mailing list bug-gnulib@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
