On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, rob_spellberg wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/4/06, Kevin Kinsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd been talking on a forum with a Linux database guy,
and he mentioned that on the PostGres lists, people
would "love to use *BSD" but the locale support is limited.
Well, sure 'nough, `locale -a | wc -l` seems to be in the
mid-200s here, and his systems have over 550 locales.
I've probably not RTFM'ed enough, but I'm just looking
for a short answer. What does FreeBSD need to have
more locales*? I'm assuming the answer is, more people
in more locations willing to take the time to RTFM and
submit patches to $x team.....
Discussion? Linkage? Slaps to the head?
Kevin Kinsey
* and, of course, an obvious counter question: *does* FreeBSD
need to have more LOCALES?"
I would not think that it could hurt.
But I tend to think that even spurious
locales would be sexy to have.
sexy locales never hurt, but locale bloat is distinctly spurious.
The last I checked, the reason why PostgreSQL implimented UNICODE support
was to avoid having to add every locale under the sun ... is there
something UNICODE *doesn't* handle?
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
_______________________________________________
freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
