On 2011-02-14 16:43:11 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
When LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf-8, programs which attempt to print unicode
characters to stdout should use UTF-8. That's what LC_TYPE means.
So, cat, grep, etc. are all broken. :)
--
Vincent Lefèvre vinc...@vinc17.net - Web: http://www.vinc17.net/
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 01:01:07AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2011-02-14 16:43:11 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
When LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf-8, programs which attempt to print unicode
characters to stdout should use UTF-8. That's what LC_TYPE means.
So, cat, grep, etc. are all broken. :)
On 2011-02-16 01:34:51 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 01:01:07AM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2011-02-14 16:43:11 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
When LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf-8, programs which attempt to print unicode
characters to stdout should use UTF-8. That's what
Le vendredi 11 février 2011 à 19:33 +0100, Axel Beckert a écrit :
Kicking out good and unique software, only because of missing or
incomplete UTF-8 support, will surely lower Debian's quality more than
missing or broken UTF-8 support in very few packages. And it would
make those users (and
Josselin Mouette writes (Re: Make Unicode bugs release critical? (was: Re:
RFA: all my packages)):
Kicking out software that doesn?t work at all in UTF-8 locales and
requires the user to set a broken locale, OTOH, sounds like a sanitary
emergency.
Excellent, I look forward to the removal
* Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk, 2011-02-14, 12:42:
Kicking out software that doesn?t work at all in UTF-8 locales and
requires the user to set a broken locale, OTOH, sounds like a sanitary
emergency.
Excellent, I look forward to the removal of python. I always hated
that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
lets start a python rant. I love to hate this language. :-)
Am Mo den 14. Feb 2011 um 14:14 schrieb Jakub Wilk:
$ LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf-8 python -c 'print u\u00a3'
unicode pound sign
[...]
$ LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf-8 python -c 'print u\u00a3' | cat
On 2011-02-14, Klaus Ethgen kl...@ethgen.de wrote:
~ LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf-8 perl -e 'print \x{00a3}\n;'
~ LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf-8 perl -e 'print \x{00a3}\n;' | cat
Both gives the same result, a '£' sign as expected.
And what's the value in that demonstration? Yes, you can treat UTF8 like a
On ma, 2011-02-14 at 14:37 +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
lets start a python rant. I love to hate this language. :-)
Let's not.
Let's not rant about any languages, or tools, or desktop environments.
Let's be constructive on Debian mailing lists, shall we?
We have plenty of side-channels for
* Klaus Ethgen kl...@ethgen.de, 2011-02-14, 14:37:
~ LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf-8 perl -e 'print \x{00a3}\n;'
~ LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf-8 perl -e 'print \x{00a3}\n;' | cat
Let me try...
$ LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf-8 perl -e 'print \x{00a3}\n;' | isutf8
stdin: line 1, char 1, byte offset 1: invalid UTF-8 code
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Am Mo den 14. Feb 2011 um 15:15 schrieb Lars Wirzenius:
On ma, 2011-02-14 at 14:37 +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
lets start a python rant. I love to hate this language. :-)
Let's not.
'Till here it is personal desire.
Let's not rant about any
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 02:02:11PM +, Philipp Kern wrote:
On 2011-02-14, Klaus Ethgen kl...@ethgen.de wrote:
~ LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf-8 perl -e 'print \x{00a3}\n;'
~ LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf-8 perl -e 'print \x{00a3}\n;' | cat
Both gives the same result, a '£' sign as expected.
And what's the
Jakub Wilk writes (Re: OT: Python (was: Make Unicode bugs release critical?)):
* Klaus Ethgen kl...@ethgen.de, 2011-02-14, 14:37:
~ LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf-8 perl -e 'print \x{00a3}\n;'
~ LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf-8 perl -e 'print \x{00a3}\n;' | cat
Let me try...
$ LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf-8 perl -e 'print
Le lundi 14 février 2011 à 12:42 +, Ian Jackson a écrit :
Josselin Mouette writes (Re: Make Unicode bugs release critical? (was: Re:
RFA: all my packages)):
Kicking out software that doesn?t work at all in UTF-8 locales and
requires the user to set a broken locale, OTOH, sounds like
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Josselin Mouette wrote:
You must specify the encoding of your data in your bitstreams. I agree
this is inconvenient (and one of the things I dislike in Python), but it
is:
1. completely independent of the locale (UTF8 or not)
2. easy to work with once you
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 02:01:08PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
As long as python 3 is compiled to use UCS-4 as the internal
representation, you mean. Are our packages set to use UCS-4?
At least for python 3.1, yes:
common_configure_args = \
--prefix=/usr \
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Am Mo den 14. Feb 2011 um 16:24 schrieb Ian Jackson:
Jakub Wilk writes (Re: OT: Python (was: Make Unicode bugs release
critical?)):
* Klaus Ethgen kl...@ethgen.de, 2011-02-14, 14:37:
~ LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf-8 perl -e 'print \x{00a3}\n
Klaus Ethgen writes (Re: OT: Python (was: Make Unicode bugs release
critical?)):
No, it is not. 00a3 is just not a utf-8 character, it is unicode. To get
a correct utf-8 character you need to print \x{c2a3} and then isutf8 is
happy.
When LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf-8, programs which attempt to print
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 16:43:11 +
Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote:
Klaus Ethgen writes (Re: OT: Python (was: Make Unicode bugs release
critical?)):
No, it is not. 00a3 is just not a utf-8 character, it is unicode.
To get a correct utf-8 character you need to print \x{c2a3
On 02/14/2011 10:39 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
[snip]
The fact that naive Python programs work (honouring LC_CTYPE as they
should) unless you pipe their output to something is clearly a bug.
The fact that it's a specification bug doesn't mean it's not a bug.
It doesn't seem to work for me.
$
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 03:57:44PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
It doesn't seem to work for me.
[...]
$ LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf-8 python -c 'print u\u00a3'
Traceback (most recent call last):
File string, line 1, in module
UnicodeEncodeError: 'ascii' codec can't encode character u'\xa3' in
position
On 02/14/2011 04:26 PM, The Fungi wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 03:57:44PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
It doesn't seem to work for me.
[...]
$ LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf-8 python -c 'print u\u00a3'
Traceback (most recent call last):
File string, line 1, inmodule
UnicodeEncodeError: 'ascii' codec
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 06:10:37PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
On 02/14/2011 04:26 PM, The Fungi wrote:
You probably don't have an en_GB.utf-8 locale (maybe you have
localepurge installed?). I bet en_US.utf-8 will net you different
results.
That's it...
No localepurge, but when initially
On pe, 2011-02-11 at 10:05 +0100, Vincent Fourmond wrote:
On 11/02/11 09:52, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le vendredi 11 février 2011 à 09:47 +0100, Adam Borowski a écrit :
I'd say there should be no place in Debian in 2011 for software that can't
do UTF-8, especially if near-identical forks
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 09:37:54AM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
However, I'm curious: is there a lot of software that is broken with
Unicode, particularly with the UTF-8 encoding? I can't remember anything
much in recent times.
Mostly it is just the old stuff like
- eterm, aterm
- elvis
-
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:14:42AM +0100, Miroslav Kure wrote:
However, I'm curious: is there a lot of software that is broken with
Unicode, particularly with the UTF-8 encoding? I can't remember anything
much in recent times.
Mostly it is just the old stuff like
- eterm, aterm
- elvis
Hi there!
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 11:14:42 +0100, Miroslav Kure wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 09:37:54AM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
However, I'm curious: is there a lot of software that is broken with
Unicode, particularly with the UTF-8 encoding? I can't remember anything
much in recent
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:14:42AM +0100, Miroslav Kure wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 09:37:54AM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
However, I'm curious: is there a lot of software that is broken with
Unicode, particularly with the UTF-8 encoding? I can't remember anything
much in recent
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
Am Fr den 11. Feb 2011 um 10:37 schrieb Lars Wirzenius:
The first Unicode standard was published in 1991. That's twenty years
ago. Any software that processes text at all and is incapable of dealing
with UTF-8 should be considered with
Am -10.01.-28163 20:59, schrieb Andrey Rahmatullin:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:14:42AM +0100, Miroslav Kure wrote:
However, I'm curious: is there a lot of software that is broken with
Unicode, particularly with the UTF-8 encoding? I can't remember anything
much in recent times.
Mostly it is
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 01:20:24PM +0100, Torsten Werner wrote:
However, I'm curious: is there a lot of software that is broken with
Unicode, particularly with the UTF-8 encoding? I can't remember anything
much in recent times.
Mostly it is just the old stuff like
- eterm, aterm
-
On pe, 2011-02-11 at 13:20 +0100, Torsten Werner wrote:
grep, sed, awk, bash, ...
grep, sed, and awk, at least, seem to work acceptably for me with UTF-8.
The support can be improved, I'm sure.
--
Blog/wiki/website hosting with ikiwiki (free for free software):
http://www.branchable.com/
--
On Fr, 11 Feb 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
XeTeX and XeLaTeX allow native UTF-8 input. Should be made the
default, IMO, given how obsolete and broken the standard TeX
encodings are. Being able to write in actual text rather than
Please don't write rubbish if you don't know what you are talking
On 02/11/11 14:20, Torsten Werner wrote:
grep, sed, awk, bash, ...
?
$ echo αβγ | sed 's/./a/'
aβγ
Regards,
Φαίδων :-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
On 2011-02-11 21:46:29 +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Fr, 11 Feb 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
XeTeX and XeLaTeX allow native UTF-8 input. Should be made the
default, IMO, given how obsolete and broken the standard TeX
encodings are. Being able to write in actual text rather than
Please
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 09:46:29PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Fr, 11 Feb 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
XeTeX and XeLaTeX allow native UTF-8 input. Should be made the
default, IMO, given how obsolete and broken the standard TeX
encodings are. Being able to write in actual text rather
On 2011-02-11 15:33:49 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:14:42AM +0100, Miroslav Kure wrote:
However, I'm curious: is there a lot of software that is broken with
Unicode, particularly with the UTF-8 encoding? I can't remember anything
much in recent times.
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:59:46PM +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
Am Fr den 11. Feb 2011 um 10:37 schrieb Lars Wirzenius:
The first Unicode standard was published in 1991. That's twenty years
ago. Any software that processes text at all and is incapable of dealing
with UTF-8 should be
On Fr, 11 Feb 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
Um, no need to be rude.
Well, you started with throw TeX into the bin! (cum grano salis)
The only possible answer to that is mine. Or shutting up and ignoring
that kind of rants from your side.
insults is a step too far. I haven't said anything that
Am 11.02.2011 14:02, schrieb Faidon Liambotis:
$ echo αβγ | sed 's/./a/'
aβγ
Okay. But...
$ echo αβγ | busybox sed 's/./a/'
a�βγ
:)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 02:30:24PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2011-02-11 15:33:49 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:14:42AM +0100, Miroslav Kure wrote:
However, I'm curious: is there a lot of software that is broken with
Unicode, particularly with the
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:43:38PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Fr, 11 Feb 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
Um, no need to be rude.
Well, you started with throw TeX into the bin! (cum grano salis)
The only possible answer to that is mine. Or shutting up and ignoring
that kind of rants from
On Fr, 11 Feb 2011, Roger Leigh wrote:
read what I actually wrote, rather than what you thought I wrote.
So *what* is your proposal, instead of discussing uselessly and wasting
bytes?
Is it:
ln -sf tex xetex
Best wishes
Norbert
On 2011-02-11 15:02:02 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 02:30:24PM +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2011-02-11 15:33:49 +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:14:42AM +0100, Miroslav Kure wrote:
However, I'm curious: is there a lot of software
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
However, I'm curious: is there a lot of software that is broken with
Unicode, particularly with the UTF-8 encoding? I can't remember anything
much in recent times.
We chose an 80% quickfix to get where we are, and so now we have the
other 80% to go. It's been whittled
Excerpts from Joey Hess's message of Sex Fev 11 13:39:08 -0200 2011:
(...)
It can be as simple as software written trusting language documentation
that says strings are processed in unicode and doesn't point out all
the exceptions that can let non-unicode data in. For example, this
simple
Hi,
Adam Borowski wrote:
Speaking of rxvt... shouldn't this clusterϫϫck become the only rxvt in
Debian? Both rxvt and rxvt-beta, completely dead upstream for 10 and 8
years respectively, besides having terrible support for terminal codes lack
even such a tiny detail as UTF-8 support.
I'd
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 09:37:54AM +, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
However, I'm curious: is there a lot of software that is broken with
Unicode, particularly with the UTF-8 encoding? I can't remember anything
much in recent times.
ispell, aspell. I think hunspell got fix recently.
Kurt
--
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
However, I'm curious: is there a lot of software that is broken with
Unicode, particularly with the UTF-8 encoding? I can't remember anything
much in recent times.
1. Stuff that cannot do one of UTF-8, UTF-16 or UCS-4.
2. Anything that cannot deal
On 02/11/2011 07:36 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
[snip]
UTF-16 is never, ever useful. It is a sad trap for win32 and Java
developers, due to a bad engineering decision suggested, as I was told, by
[snip]
No, there is only one encoding left, as long as you don't have to talk to
Windows.
Never
[Ron Johnson]
Never useful except for 90% of the market? (I wonder how SAMBA deals
with it...)
I don't think you really want to know. There's a 'unicode' flag in
much of the CIFS protocol that means filenames and such are in UTF-16
(I think UTF-16LE) instead of
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 08:16:54PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
However, I'm curious: is there a lot of software that is broken with
Unicode, particularly with the UTF-8 encoding? I can't remember anything
much in recent times.
2.
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 08:16:54PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
2. Anything that cannot deal with Supplementary planes.
This includes the use of UCS-2 instead of UTF-16, as it cannot represent
the Supplementary planes. python
53 matches
Mail list logo
