Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Please note that the patched slang1 is not binary compatible with the > unpatched slang1. Making it binary compatible would be a horrible hack > as the slang API exposes the internal representation of the contents > of a screen cell as a 32-bit word. > > I have no idea whether the current patched slang is usable for > Japanese; I have only used it for UTF-8. However, there's a good > chance it might work for Japanese encodings. With glibc-2.2's wide > character support it is possible to use the same code for UTF-8 as for > Japanese character encodings. So it would nice if someone Japanese > could try it or have a look.
Its sounding more and more like we should probably use slang1-ja...? > If we could patch slang1 so that it works with glibc-2.2 in UTF-8 or > CJK encodings, but isn't binary-compatible with the unpatched slang1, > would that be an acceptable solution for boot-floppies? Well, one thing you have to understand, whatever patching we do should be available in a Debian package. That is to say, I don't want to be dragging around diffs. I need these changes to propogate into the packages themselves. You seem to be avoiding the question here -- patch slang1, use slang1-ja, or make a new slang1-wide package with these patches? > Do you have a check list of the programs that will be linked against > slang in boot-floppies? No, sorry. > I don't know what's happening about slang2, but I assume it won't be > ready in time for Woody. (There are parts of the slang API which I > think should be redesigned to cope better with combining characters - > needed in Thai, for example. We really need John Davis to contribute > to updating the API for slang2.) I would presume it won't be ready. -- .....Adam Di [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>
