Will Coleda wrote: > While you're waiting, we should improve the test for readline: we > used to have similar failures where we found readline (or other > probed thingees) but the version was not recent enough for us to link > with.
(1) Some sort of grouping for the libraries so that only the libraries really needed for an executable are used? (2) I don't know what the -lreadline test currently does but obviously it wrongly detects -lreadline as useable in this system. > Regards. >
