On Thu, 19 Dec 2013, Warren Young wrote: > On 12/17/2013 18:57, Andrew Wyatt wrote: >> Yes, there are many missing -devel packages. It's possible that they >> didn't fit on the media though, Look at lftp ftp.redhat.com:/redhat/rhel/beta/7/x86_64/os/Packages> ls libedit* libedit-3.0-10.20121213cvs.el7.i686.rpm libedit-3.0-10.20121213cvs.el7.x86_64.rpm libedit-devel-3.0-10.20121213cvs.el7.i686.rpm libedit-devel-3.0-10.20121213cvs.el7.x86_64.rpm # rpm -qlp libedit-3.0-10.20121213cvs.el7.x86_64.rpm /usr/lib64/libedit.so.0 /usr/lib64/libedit.so.0.0.42 /usr/share/doc/libedit-3.0 /usr/share/doc/libedit-3.0/COPYING /usr/share/doc/libedit-3.0/ChangeLog /usr/share/doc/libedit-3.0/THANKS -Connie Sieh > > I've run into two of these myself: libedit and libgd. Both of these are > living, useful libraries, without direct replacements.[*] > > Clearly there are RPMs shipped in the distro that require these > libraries. I guess Red Hat are saying that they don't intend that you > develop your *own* software against these libraries. > > > > [*] (libedit is API-compatible with readline, but most apps that use it > do so in order to avoid the GPL. There are many alternatives to GD, but > none are API-compatible.) > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >