Re: [bug-gnulib] Opening a can of worms: a readline gnulib module?

[Bruno Haible]

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