> Takao, > > thank you very much for the patch! > > I wrote a recipe for CBE (SFEputty.spec) and was so > keen to use your > patch to get a packaged putty 0.60, working fine. > > Do you think the changes could be put upstream or > might this need more work? >
I gather from what AlanC said in http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=44922&tstart=0#176938 that the two functions putty uses that were missing on opensolaris will be incorporated eventually; so this would be a hacky sort of thing that one might not want to pass upstream, unless one was in a particular _hurry_ to get putty supported. I'd personally guess that the i18n functionality is less with that patch than it would be without it once those functions were available (possibly even explaining the problem you mentioned), but that's just a guess; I haven't had occasion to get into that sort of thing myself, which is why I needed some help to work around the missing functions. This message posted from opensolaris.org
