[PATCH 0/8] Upgrade readline
Sergio Durigan Junior
Mon Aug 12 19:46:00 GMT 2019
On Wednesday, August 07 2019, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Sergio" == Sergio Durigan Junior <email@example.com> writes:
> Sergio> I'm in favour of bumping the readline version to 7 (note that Debian
> Sergio> oldstable, i.e., wheezy, which was released 4+ years ago, already ships
> Sergio> with readline 7), and (eventually) just get rid of our local copy.
> We talked about that briefly on irc yesterday too.
Yes (for a different value of "yesterday" now).
> I wonder if we really could get rid of the local copy. I mean,
> obviously we could, but would it be a problem for anybody?
[ /me puts his downstream hat ]
I guess it depends. If the person is building GDB on a system that
doesn't offer readline-dev or a similar package, then it can be a
"problem" in the sense that he or she will have to compile readline by
Otherwise, I don't see how it can be a problem. As I pointed out during
the IRC discussion, the two major GNU distros (Fedora and Debian) are
already compiling their GDB packages using --with-system-readline, so,
in a way, our readline copy is not needed. These distros also provide
readline-dev, which makes it very easy for users to compile their own
GDBs without using our local readline copy.
OOC, I went to check how Arch[GNU/]Linux compiles GDB, and they are also
> We could treat it a few ways. One would be like libiconv: keep the
> top-level configury around so it's possible to drop the readline sources
> into the tree and then build.
That'd be a good compromise, IMO.
> Another way would be to use something like guix for these dependencies.
> I don't know if that works on all the hosts that we care about.
> The guix way is attractive since it seems vaguely analogous to using
> "cargo" in the Rust world. In particular if we could do something like
> this, maybe we could be less conservative about bringing in new
The guix idea seems awesome, but that's because I like guix ;-). If I'm
honest, I don't like the idea of keeping readline in-tree at all; I'd
prefer to have guix manage some "obscure" dependency that can be missing
in some system. But that's me and my "let's not turn everything into a
flatpak" feeling ;-).
> I think either of these solutions would also fix the bug we found with
> moving gdbsupport to the top level (i.e. that it interacts poorly with
> --with-system-readline). (I never got a response to that note, so if
> you're reading this, I'd appreciate a quick look at that as well.)
I'll take a look, thanks for mentioning!
GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF 31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible
More information about the Gdb-patches