Chris Staub wrote: > I don't think anyone is debating that they aren't being forced to use > UTF-8 locales. However, the issue is that if you never do use a UTF-8 > locale, then the UTF-8 code just sits there unnecessarily taking up > space. It isn't a question of whether it "works" - I *know* that > non-UTF-8 locales will work fine with UTF-8-enable LFS - it's that if > the extra disk space and memory being taking up is not needed, then it > shouldn't be there.
Please be specific about which extra code exists and that is wasting space. If this is really a valid concern, I'd like to see it quantified. How much of a difference in space is there now between what LFS was before the UTF-8 merge and now? As far as man-db or Berkeley DB, we already know about the objection to those and I don't think any of us would mind if a better alternative was found. Also, Jim has mentioned the man developers interest in quickly getting proper UTF-8 support into his package. So if we just keep pointing at only those changes it would be like beating a dead horse. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
