I wrote:
if (MB_CUR_MAX > 1)
quick_and_simple_implementation();
else
completely_different_code_that_does_the_same();
Of course, I meant "if (MB_CUR_MAX == 1)". Sorry for this thinko.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfr
Jeremy Herbison wrote:
Here is another argument: Without the UTF-8 patch, there is still
Partial (broken) UTF-8 support in the book.
Yes, broken.
1) One cannot set up UTF-8 mode on the console using old bootscripts,
2) grep incorrectly matches '[' for all character classes (i.e.,
brokenness
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>Well ASCII is technically 7 bits, but most systems recognize Latin1
>which is 8 bits.
>
>
I don't know why I said 4 bits, You are right.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information p
Joe Ciccone wrote:
> The most interesting thing from a programmers point of view is the way
> the characters are handled. This is the reason why incompatibilites
> exist. A non-UTF-8 character, char, is 4 bits whereas a UTF-8 character,
> wchar, is 32bits. It's hard to write code to properly suppo
After doing some research on my own. I personaly would like to build
without UTF-8 support because of the following problems that have been
mentioned.
1. Man isn't UTF-8 ready yet, but support is planned.
Man-DB seems like overkill for this application.
2. Groff isn't UTF-8 ready yet, but su
Andrew Benton wrote these words on 01/21/06 18:27 CST:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>>So, if you're following this thread and you have a strong feeling that
>>you'd like the UTF-8 changes to be added in as the default or prefer
>>them to be stored in an appendix, please make your opinion known.
>
> +1 f
Dan Nicholson wrote:
So, if you're following this thread and you have a strong feeling that
you'd like the UTF-8 changes to be added in as the default or prefer
them to be stored in an appendix, please make your opinion known.
+1 for utf8 support in as the default.
(just catching up)
Andy
--
h
Jeremy Huntwork([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 05:52:37PM -0500:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
> > "To undertake a project, as the world's derivation indicates, means to
> > cast an idea out ahead of oneself so that it gains autonomy and is
> > fulfilled not only by the efforts of its origina
Jeremy Herbison wrote:
> The best argument against it anyhow has been "it breaks jhlfs".
>>From the point of view of a common reader: "What the hell is
> jhlfs?" Shouldn't the main project be the focus, not one
> developer's side project? (No offense intended, Jeremy).
None taken. Personally, I d
Richard A Downing wrote:
> "To undertake a project, as the world's derivation indicates, means to
> cast an idea out ahead of oneself so that it gains autonomy and is
> fulfilled not only by the efforts of its originator but, indeed,
> independently of him as well" - Visions of San Francisco Bay,
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 12:34:39 +
Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>
> > The problem is that I no longer want UTF-8 in trunk.
>
> Well, I do. I consider it a bug that we can't cater for folk wanting
> to use UTF-8 locales without breaking groff, man, gr
Archaic wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:16:18PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>>I'm not sure about making it the default. For my personal systems, I
>>don't think I want it.
>
>
> It needs to be explicitly stated, again, as people aren't getting it.
> The utf8 addition to the book *DOES NOT M
Here is another argument: Without the UTF-8 patch, there is still
Partial (broken) UTF-8 support in the book. Some packages already
enable UTF-8 (gettext, bash, glibc etc), and the testsuites
require some UTF-8 locales. Thus, anyone who wants the UTF-8 patch
removed should be responsible for additi
Chris Staub([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 11:41:51AM -0500:
> Archaic wrote:
> >On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 01:48:32PM -0500, Chris Staub wrote:
> >>Note: I am not saying I am absolutely against UTF-8 support being the
> >>default (haven't really decided yet). I'm just tired of hearing this
Archaic wrote:
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 01:48:32PM -0500, Chris Staub wrote:
Note: I am not saying I am absolutely against UTF-8 support being the
default (haven't really decided yet). I'm just tired of hearing this
"you don't *have* to use UTF-8 locales/all other locales still work
fine" argum
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 01:48:32PM -0500, Chris Staub wrote:
>
> Note: I am not saying I am absolutely against UTF-8 support being the
> default (haven't really decided yet). I'm just tired of hearing this
> "you don't *have* to use UTF-8 locales/all other locales still work
> fine" argument, m
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:16:18PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> I'm not sure about making it the default. For my personal systems, I
> don't think I want it.
It needs to be explicitly stated, again, as people aren't getting it.
The utf8 addition to the book *DOES NOT MAKE YOUR SYSTEM RUN IN UTF
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
The problem is that I no longer want UTF-8 in trunk.
Well, I do. I consider it a bug that we can't cater for folk wanting to
use UTF-8 locales without breaking groff, man, grep, etc. UTF-8 support
is a lot better now than it has been. It may not be perfect, bu
Ag Hatzim wrote:
But if we end up like this,soon or later there will one book for every
developer :).
Isn't it what already happened without my help? But you are probably
right :)
Now,and regarding Chris (possible valid) concerns,can you tell us exactly how
extra space will take a UTF-8 e
Alexander E. Patrakov([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 01:03:34PM +0500:
> Ag Hatzim wrote:
>
> >Sorry if i am not qualified to contribute to the discussion.
> >
> >But I wrote it once.
> >Why We don't use a *permanent* experimental branch?
> >Make there the early development (alphabetical,
Ag Hatzim wrote:
Sorry if i am not qualified to contribute to the discussion.
But I wrote it once.
Why We don't use a *permanent* experimental branch?
Make there the early development (alphabetical,udev,unicode etc...),bring the
adopted changes to the
dev-branch,freeze/test it,release it.
The
Alexander E. Patrakov([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 11:45:50AM +0500:
> 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 un
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-
Jeremy Herbison wrote:
How about just a "I don't wanna use man-db" hint, with maybe a link and a
warning on the man-db page.
Short version below. Works in all locales with groff-1.19.2. Not for the
book, because it blacklists Russian manual pages.
== cut here ==
You need Man-1.5b a
On 1/20/2006 13:45, Chris Staub wrote:
> 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.
I think this is sort of like saying well my DNS box has/needs only a small
disk in it, why s
Matthew Burgess wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
Matt what I would like to do is hold off until LFS gets more testing
done, then merge. Is that acceptable.
Of course, just so long as you haven't written UTF-8 off for CLFS
completely :-)
Regards,
Matt.
No we have started to experiment with test b
Jim Gifford wrote:
Matt what I would like to do is hold off until LFS gets more testing
done, then merge. Is that acceptable.
Of course, just so long as you haven't written UTF-8 off for CLFS
completely :-)
Regards,
Matt.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://
Matthew Burgess wrote:
I'd obviously prefer CLFS to follow suit - cross-building and UTF-8
are (or should be) entirely orthogonal concepts. If our adding
support for UTF-8 breaks the CLFS build, then we should work together
to see if an amicable solution is possible.
Matt what I would like
Jim Gifford wrote:
With the recent thread in Cross-LFS and LFS-dev lists, I wanted to pose
an idea. Couldn't we add the utf-8 pages to an appendix and refer to
them via notes in the builds, like we currently do with Cracklib in
Shadow, the only difference is that we would be refering to an appe
So, if you're following this thread and you have a strong feeling that
you'd like the UTF-8 changes to be added in as the default or prefer
them to be stored in an appendix, please make your opinion known.
--
Dan
Yes to default please.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
F
Chris Staub wrote:
Patrakov also mentioned something about ncurses apps taking an extra
16kb of RAM.
Yeah, I remember him saying that also. For the life of me I can't find
anything in the mailing list archives though. He said (paraphrasing)
that the binaries were identical with ncurses app
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
On 1/20/06, Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Chris Staub wrote:
M.Canales.es wrote:
El Viernes, 20 de Enero de 2006 17:34, Jim Gifford escribió:
Talking to community members in cross-lfs, most of them don't want to be
forced to use utf-8, because they don't need it. Others want to be able
to test it, and if they don't like it do a build
Original Message
Subject: Re: UTF-8
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 13:45:28 -0500
From: Chris Staub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Cross-LFS Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL
El Viernes, 20 de Enero de 2006 17:34, Jim Gifford escribió:
> Talking to community members in cross-lfs, most of them don't want to be
> forced to use utf-8, because they don't need it. Others want to be able
> to test it, and if they don't like it do a build without it.
No one is forcing to use
On 1/20/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> > On 1/20/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> This discussion needs to happen on both lfs-dev and cross-lfs, everyone
> >> in lfs-dev seems to want it, but people in cross-lfs don't need it.
> >> That's w
Richard A Downing wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:34:20 -0800
> Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Before you spend a lot of time making changes that move the UTF-8
>>fixes to an appendix, I think we should see if that's actually what
>>the community wants. Jim and a few others have said
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 09:45:34 -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Richard A Downing wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:34:20 -0800
>> Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>BUT, in the past when it was being decided if the book would become
>>>UTF-8 compatible, I remember there being a lot of suppor
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> If that means we need to use man-db + BDB, I have no problem with that.
> But if others do take issue with adding those packages, then I'm also OK
> with waiting a couple months until plain old man and groff work in UTF-8.
By the time we're ready to branch for testing, that
Jim Gifford wrote:
> know all the in's and out's. Alex did do some testing, but none of the
> lfs-dev's have tested it
That depends on what you mean by testing. I have built it at least twice
and have used the resultant english UTF-8 locale, albeit briefly. Keep
in mind that it's not like we've pu
> Jim said:
> Talking to community members in cross-lfs, most of them don't want to be
> forced to use utf-8, because they don't need it. Others want to be able
> to test it, and if they don't like it do a build without it.
No one is being forced to use utf-8. They're just building a utf-8
compati
> I give a +1 now. The support issues alone, such as "I built non-utf8,
> how can I add it now?", are enough to make me want it default on. The
> alternative solutions, such as an appendix, won't solve this support
> issue either. Having two separate books seems like a waste. For now,
> Alexand
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
On 1/20/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This discussion needs to happen on both lfs-dev and cross-lfs, everyone
in lfs-dev seems to want it, but people in cross-lfs don't need it.
That's why I started the thread on both lists.
Why the division? I thou
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 06:34:20AM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
> So, if you're following this thread and you have a strong feeling that
> you'd like the UTF-8 changes to be added in as the default or prefer
> them to be stored in an appendix, please make your opinion known.
+1 for "make UTF-8 capa
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 08:49:56 -0800
Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please reply to both lists
>
Jim,
Cross-lfs is not on gmane. Can you get it on there please, then I'll
monitor it. I don't do mailing lists anymore.
R.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: ht
On 1/20/06, Jim Gifford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This discussion needs to happen on both lfs-dev and cross-lfs, everyone
> in lfs-dev seems to want it, but people in cross-lfs don't need it.
> That's why I started the thread on both lists.
Why the division? I thought cross-lfs was just a way o
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Jim Gifford wrote:
This discussion needs to happen on both lfs-dev and cross-lfs, everyone
in lfs-dev seems to want it, but people in cross-lfs don't need it.
Are you saying that because people are cross-compiling, they won't need
UTF-8? That can't be right...
Jim Gifford wrote:
> This discussion needs to happen on both lfs-dev and cross-lfs, everyone
> in lfs-dev seems to want it, but people in cross-lfs don't need it.
Are you saying that because people are cross-compiling, they won't need
UTF-8? That can't be right...
>
> Talking to community member
This discussion needs to happen on both lfs-dev and cross-lfs, everyone
in lfs-dev seems to want it, but people in cross-lfs don't need it.
That's why I started the thread on both lists.
Talking to community members in cross-lfs, most of them don't want to be
forced to use utf-8, because they
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
There should be only one set of build instructions, and identical
binaries. No optional appendix with commands. All differences between
UTF-8 and non-UTF-8 installations should be in the /etc directory.
I give a +1 now. The support issues alone, such as "I built
On 1/20/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I already made it known in other threads. Just in case, once again:
>
> There should be only one set of build instructions, and identical
> binaries. No optional appendix with commands. All differences between
> UTF-8 and non-UTF-8 inst
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 19:47:54 +0500
"Alexander E. Patrakov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> >So, if you're following this thread and you have a strong feeling
> >that you'd like the UTF-8 changes to be added in as the default or
> >prefer them to be stored in an appendix, ple
Dan Nicholson wrote:
So, if you're following this thread and you have a strong feeling that
you'd like the UTF-8 changes to be added in as the default or prefer
them to be stored in an appendix, please make your opinion known.
I already made it known in other threads. Just in case, once agai
Richard A Downing wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:34:20 -0800
> Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>BUT, in the past when it was being decided if the book would become
>>UTF-8 compatible, I remember there being a lot of support for it being
>>on by default. I personally want it this way, an
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 06:34:20 -0800
Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/20/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately, this broke jhalfs, because it assumes that the book
> > has to be followed in the linear way. Further patches will not be
> > provided u
On 1/20/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, this broke jhalfs, because it assumes that the book has
> to be followed in the linear way. Further patches will not be provided
> until a consistent approach to this problem is developed. Manuel, please
> help.
Alexan
I wrote:
I have prepared a sample patch (attached, but please don't apply now)
that implements the changes described by you to the Coreutils page.
Does this sample look OK to you?
Unfortunately, this broke jhalfs, because it assumes that the book has
to be followed in the linear way. Further
Jim Gifford wrote:
With the recent thread in Cross-LFS and LFS-dev lists, I wanted to
pose an idea. Couldn't we add the utf-8 pages to an appendix and refer
to them via notes in the builds, like we currently do with Cracklib in
Shadow, the only difference is that we would be refering to an
ap
Jim Gifford wrote:
With the recent thread in Cross-LFS and LFS-dev lists, I wanted to
pose an idea. Couldn't we add the utf-8 pages to an appendix and refer
to them via notes in the builds, like we currently do with Cracklib in
Shadow, the only difference is that we would be refering to an
ap
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Hello,
the UTF-8 patch has been updated in order to use DB instead of GDBM
(this was easier than I thought). The arpd binary has been reenabled in
iproute2. Description of the "locale" command has been corrected on the
Glibc page. There are n
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Confirmed here. Here is some output from the script I use:
Thanks Randy.
--
JH
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Jeremy Huntwork wrote these words on 01/06/06 12:23 CST:
> After applying your patch, the book renders properly, but it fails the
> 'make validate' check.
>
> Can you confirm this?
Confirmed here. Here is some output from the script I use:
Status against revision: 7248
Validating XHTML Versi
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the UTF-8 patch has been updated in order to use DB instead of GDBM
> (this was easier than I thought). The arpd binary has been reenabled in
> iproute2. Description of the "locale" command has been corrected on the
> Glibc page. There are no other changes
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> If no one else gets to it, among other things, I'll be looking at this
> later tonight. And then I'll do what I can to get it in ASAP.
And done. Unless we hit some major blocker, it should stay in as well.
Any minor niggles or somewhat-more-than-minor problems should proba
On 1/5/06, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> None here. Though I haven't had a chance to look at the patch. Too bad
> so few have commented on any of this. Lot's of emails from a small
> handful of people, but a wider community input sure would be nice.
I am currently building an LFS with Ale
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006, Archaic wrote:
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 06:32:44PM -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
If no one else gets to it, among other things, I'll be looking at this
later tonight. And then I'll do what I can to get it in ASAP. Any
objections?
None here. Though I haven't had a chance to
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 04:06:44PM -0800, Dan Nicholson wrote:
>
> Or, if the patch won't go in prior to wider testing, I can hammer out
> a build in the next few days.
Unless something major happens today, it will go in. JH has volunteered,
and if he can't, I will. I'm still reviewing the patch,
On 1/5/06, Dan Nicholson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/5/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The patch is available at:
> >
> > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~alexander/patches2/lfs_book-r7243-utf8-2.patch
>
> Once the patch gets into the book, I'll do an ICA run on it an
On 1/5/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The patch is available at:
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~alexander/patches2/lfs_book-r7243-utf8-2.patch
Once the patch gets into the book, I'll do an ICA run on it and see
how it stands up to the alphabetical changes.
--
Dan
--
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 07:20:54PM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>
> * Removed the "all UTF-8-only bugs are WONTFIX" note from
> chapter07/profile.xml (but it is still true), pointed to the BLFS page
> for locale related issues.
Thanks, Alexander.
> * Convert Groff Debian patch to LFS-st
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 06:32:44PM -0500, Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>
> If no one else gets to it, among other things, I'll be looking at this
> later tonight. And then I'll do what I can to get it in ASAP. Any
> objections?
None here. Though I haven't had a chance to look at the patch. Too bad
so f
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> The patch is available at:
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~alexander/patches2/lfs_book-r7243-utf8-2.patch
>
>
> The rendered book is at:
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~alexander/lfs-book/
>
> Please review.
If no one else gets to it, among other thin
On 1/4/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> > In the ncurses instructions, you use the INPUT method to force linking
> > against the widec versions. Wouldn't it be easier to just use symlinks
> > like we do for ncurses? Or is there a particular reason for
On 1/5/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the UTF-8 patch has been updated in order to use DB instead of GDBM
> (this was easier than I thought).
Alexander, you're a machine. Keep up the good work if you can!
--
Dan
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/l
Randy McMurchy wrote:
I used 4.4.16 in my most recent build. I did not update BLFS to this
version. There are some API changes, however, so far I've only had to
patch Python. I am quite confident though, that if we run into any
other issues there is either 1)patches already available or 2) we
co
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
>> In the ncurses instructions, you use the INPUT method to force linking
>> against the widec versions. Wouldn't it be easier to just use symlinks
>> like we do for ncurses? Or is there a particular reason for choosing
>> the INPUT method?
>
Tushar Teredesai wrote:
In the ncurses instructions, you use the INPUT method to force linking
against the widec versions. Wouldn't it be easier to just use symlinks
like we do for ncurses? Or is there a particular reason for choosing
the INPUT method?
If symlinks are used, the "ldconfig" progr
On 1/4/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have updated the UTF-8 patch. The new version is available at:
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~alexander/patches2/lfs_book-r7243-utf8-1.patch
>
> The rendered version is at:
>
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~alexander/lfs-boo
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 01/04/06 10:16 CST:
> OK, I will build LFS and update the patch tomorrow. Comments on other
> parts of the patch are still welcome.
>
> Should I use DB-4.3.29 or 4.4.16?
I used 4.4.16 in my most recent build. I did not update BLFS to this
version. Ther
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Can't the patch be delayed until DB is put in?
OK, I will build LFS and update the patch tomorrow. Comments on other
parts of the patch are still welcome.
Should I use DB-4.3.29 or 4.4.16?
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
Don't mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]: the server is off unt
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote these words on 01/04/06 08:20 CST:
> Please apply the patch, and, in the case if it is unsuitable as a whole,
> please don't revert parts that are actually OK.
I thought it was almost 100% choice of folks that responded to use
DB instead of the GDBM database. I realiz
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
(Yes, you have to use nl_langinfo() to get a string to pass to iconv_open
and if the destination is the internal representation of wchar_t, that's
called mbrtowc() :)
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
Don't mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]: the server is off until 2006-01-11
Use my GMa
On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 03:13:52PM +0200, Pasha Zubkov wrote:
> >Where is that quoted from?
>
> http://docs.hp.com/en/B9106-90012/orientation.5.html
> This is for HP-UX, but it's true for glibc to.
Ah. Between this and your glibc link below, I'll agree with you --
fgetwc or getwc on a popen()ed
Pasha Zubkov wrote:
Standard recomends using UTF-8.
where? which standard? If "LSB" or "openi18n" aka "li18nux2000", I don't
count that because their sample implementation misbehaves.
As for the patch, I will not accept anything that cotnatis the "if
utf-8" part. Use mbrtowc() to assemble
Randy McMurchy wrote:
And I've now probably pissed him off so badly that I won't get his
full attention to this message. However, in hopes that he'll provide
what I need here, I think we can put all these differences behind us.
No offence taken at all, and no need to say "sorry". It's just hous
Bryan Kadzban пишет:
"Just after a stream is associated with a pipe by the popen()
function, the stream is byte-oriented."
Where is that quoted from?
http://docs.hp.com/en/B9106-90012/orientation.5.html
This is for HP-UX, but it's true for glibc to.
I was not aware that there was a differen
Pasha Zubkov wrote:
> Bryan Kadzban пишет:
>
>> Why not just use getwc(), and use wchar_t's in all cases?
>>
>> You'd have to modify the output to convert back to multibyte
>> characters (specifically, LC_CTYPE-encoding characters; they may
>> not actually have more than one byte per character),
Bryan Kadzban пишет:
Why not just use getwc(), and use wchar_t's in all cases?
You'd have to modify the output to convert back to multibyte characters
(specifically, LC_CTYPE-encoding characters; they may not actually have
more than one byte per character), but it looks like add_wch does that
al
Pasha Zubkov wrote:
> Alexander E. Patrakov пишет:
>
>> Pasha Zubkov wrote:
>>
>>> Hello, this patch fix UTF-8 issue with `watch` at least in
>>> ru_RU.UTF-8 and be_BY.UTF-8.
>>
>> Rejected, breaks ru_RU.KOI8-R.
>>
> Added test for UTF-8.
>
Why not just use getwc(), and use wchar_t's in all
Alexander E. Patrakov пишет:
Pasha Zubkov wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov пишет:
UTF-8 is _still_ not fully supported (e.g. 'tr :upper: :lower:' works
only on ASCII characters, 'watch' shows only ASCII characters,
'sfdisk' misaligns button labels in non-English UTF-8 locales), but
the same bug
Pasha Zubkov wrote:
+ if (c > 127) {
+ c = ((c ^ 192)
<< 6) + (getc(p) ^ 128);
+ } else if (c > 223) {
+
Pasha Zubkov wrote:
Alexander E. Patrakov пишет:
UTF-8 is _still_ not fully supported (e.g. 'tr :upper: :lower:' works
only on ASCII characters, 'watch' shows only ASCII characters,
'sfdisk' misaligns button labels in non-English UTF-8 locales), but
the same bugs exist in all distros (includi
Alexander E. Patrakov пишет:
UTF-8 is _still_ not fully supported (e.g. 'tr :upper: :lower:' works
only on ASCII characters, 'watch' shows only ASCII characters, 'sfdisk'
misaligns button labels in non-English UTF-8 locales), but the same bugs
exist in all distros (including those which claim t
Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
So (IMHO) the only valid reasons for choosing a UTF-8 based locale are:
1. RedHat compatibility at the cost of incompatibility with everyone
else (including MS Windows):
* Need to share files via NFS with systems that already use UTF-8
locales and can't be reconfi
Alan Lord wrote:
As a UK (English) based LFS user/builder I have, so far, had no problem
using a standard LFS build. However, it has seemed to me that almost all
new IT systems and Web Services platforms are using UTF-8 encoding. I am
therefore planning to build my next LFS as a UTF-8.
You a
Alan Lord wrote these words on 12/28/05 13:57 CST:
> Please forgive [ignore] my intrusion to the list if it is unwelcome.
It is certainly not unwelcome. However, discussion of UTF-8 issues
on BLFS-Dev will mostly center around packages that need special
descriptions, instructions or some other ne
On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:04:13 +
Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks very much for all your hard work on this Alexander.
Da. +1.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 07:50:24AM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
>
> Do this as you wish. Either GDBM (with or without the compatibility
> library) or Berkeley DB is good for Man-DB. I chose GDBM because of
> smaller package size.
Okay, I will start another thread about just this topic as
Archaic wrote:
On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 01:03:47PM -0700, Archaic wrote:
3) GDBM. Can Man-DB use Berkeley? If so, would that be preferable?
(Would also allow us to remove the arpd sed in IPRoute2.
Assuming GDBM stays, should we install the compatability library? There
are other instanc
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
