On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:18:43AM +0100, Peter Hessler wrote: > from what I can tell, the problems blocking this diff from going in have > been fixed, and it looks good to me.
(Putting misc@ on Cc so that everyone interested gets this information.) There is more to this than the wcwidth() bug (which, yes, has been fixed). There are general open questions as to how much support for wide characters the base system should get. If we modify ls(1), which other tools do we also modify? What rules do we apply when adding wide character support to one tool but not another? How do we guarantee that all base tools behave consistently with multi-byte characters? Changing all base tools to use wide characters is not a very satisfying answer. It is a lot of work and will cause a lot of code churn in base. With ports, the story is different. These are intended to provide functionality the base system doesn't offer. A lot of applications in ports already provide wide-character support. The base system now offers most of the necessary library support to those applications. During s2k11 I added wide-char support to the sysutils/colorls port. This is OpenBSD's ls, with some patches to add color support, and now also multi-byte support. For now, if you really require multi-byte filenames in ls output you can install colorls and alias it to 'ls' in your shell.
