Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:52 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I think it's Debian's problem, not ours, if that doesn't work. It is
>> not unreasonable for a package to probe existence of a library function
>> at configure time. It's up to them to make sure that the headers match
>> the actual library.
> That seems like an unhelpful attitude. Debian is a mainstream
> platform, and no doubt feels that they have important reasons for what
> they are doing.
Nonetheless, if they're doing that, it's *their* bug not ours when
the run-time library fails to match what was supplied to compile
against. I think it would fall to them to patch either libedit
or readline to make those two agree. This is not different in any
way from the expectation that a platform supply a libc whose ABI
is stable.
In any case, this discussion is a bit hypothetical isn't it?
If I understand correctly, your concern is that the proposed
patch might fail to take advantage of functionality that actually
might be present at runtime. So what? It's no worse than before.
More, it's likely that there are other similar losses of functionality
already in our code and/or other peoples'. Debian bought into that
tradeoff, not us.
regards, tom lane
