Ross J. Reedstrom wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 12:03:44AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Ross J. Reedstrom writes:
> >
> > > Yes, BSD systems that install libedit directly in /usr/include (or into
> > > readline), like Patrick's, don't need it, but mine do. Is there some
> > > reason we _shouldn't_ support this configuration?
> >
> > I don't like adding code to support every configuration that someone
> > dreamed up but no one actually needs. Readline installs the header files
> > into <readline/readline.h> and if someone thinks they can change that they
> > deserve to pay the price. The configure script is already slow enough
> > without this.
>
> Hmm, isn't this exactly what configure is for? To find out where this
> particular system installs all the bits and pieces? Note that even without
> the test for editline/readline.h, the existing configure looks in two
> placesi for readline functionality, so doesn't match your comment,
> above. As for 'someone changing that' paying the price, I think it's
> reasonable for an incomplete compatability library to install into a
> different location: if it claims to be readline/readline.h, it better
> support the entire API, in my book.
>
> Regardless of all of the above, I'm willing to let this part go. Note that
> I can no longer easily test libedit functionality in that case, however.
> I leave it up to Bruce (or whomever applies the patch)
Configure is for such tests --- you are right, and we already test two
places. I doubt there is any measurable change in testing 10 locations.
Just allowing you to test libedit is enough to justify the addition.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
