Randy McMurchy wrote:
Justin R. Knierim wrote these words on 02/09/06 09:50 CST:
IMO he isn't blaming BLFS for problems with UTF-8.
Then you and I read plain English differently. IMO, the following
statement directly conflicts with what you say above:
"But it is indeed better to say "no" to UTF-8 support now, because of
BLFS issues and because UTF-8 support is a property of the whole system,
not just its base."
I do not blame BLFS. I am just saying that it is a huge (but doable!)
job for me to verify all BLFS packages. My point is that if we release
both LFS and BLFS now, the reader will have the choice: either don't use
UTF-8 based locales (then why have 100K patches in LFS?), or don't use
BLFS as it is (then why have BLFS?). Released versions of LFS always
expected the reader to be able to continue in BLFS, and my patch broke that.
My opinion is that known 99.9% working BLFS has greater value than UTF-8
support in the base system. Thus, it is a good idea to postpone UTF-8
support in LFS trunk to the 6.3 release (even though it is nearly ready
by itself, minus political issues), move it to a branch, and work with
BLFS problems right now in the wiki.
--
Alexander E. Patrakov
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
