Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 10:23, Fahad G. wrote:
>> I checked and I don't have 'readline' installed. --without-readline did the
>> trick, but shouldn't this be handled automatically?
> This is intentional
Indeed. A few releases back we did actually behave th
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 12:03:39PM +1000, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 10:23, Fahad G. wrote:
> > I checked and I don't have 'readline' installed. --without-readline did the
> > trick, but shouldn't this be handled automatically?
>
> This is intentional -- what's wrong with stopping?
On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 10:23, Fahad G. wrote:
> I checked and I don't have 'readline' installed. --without-readline did the
> trick, but shouldn't this be handled automatically?
This is intentional -- what's wrong with stopping? ISTM that stopping
and letting the user know what went wrong is probab
