Re: Opening a can of worms: a readline gnulib module?

[Bruno Haible]

Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Installed the patch below.

Thanks a lot. (This stuff is not a piece of cake.)

> > HAVE_READLINE vs. HAVE_READLINE_READLINE_H should be the same.
>
> I solved it slightly differently.  I made these two tests orthogonal.
> readline/readline.h is used by the header file if available.
> -lreadline is used instead of the *.c file if available.  The two
> decisions don't depend on each other.

Hmm. That means that when the library is misinstalled but the
<readline/readline.h> include file exists, gnulib's readline.h will include
it. For the prototype of the declared function it doesn't matter, since
the compilation of lib/readline.c will verify whether it's the same. But
if a program uses other functions like rl_set_prompt() or rl_initialize()
the code will compile fine but yield a link error. Sounds a little
dangerous. But maybe it's fine since in this case the problem is really
with the guy's system?

> > IMO, support for FreeBSD libedit [1] can be added at a later date. Not
> > urgent.
>
> Interesting.  I wonder if the gnulib module really should have another
> name.  E.g., gl_prompt.

gl_readline is OK. With this name, everyone will know immediately what it's
about.

Bruno