On Wednesday, March 27, 2019 11:34:03 PM CET Assaf Gordon wrote: > On 2019-03-27 3:24 a.m., Kamil Dudka wrote: > > On Wednesday, March 27, 2019 9:04:06 AM CET Tim Rühsen wrote: > > > > I do not think there was any problem with format of the submission. As I > > understand it, the effort is now stalled because the lack of competent and > > motivated enough reviewers. > > Respectfully, no. > > Adding proper multibyte support for coreutils is an on-going > effort that started long before these specific patches
Sorry, I did not want to say that nobody was working on this. I just wanted to point out that the mentioned patches were sent upstream long time ago but have not been merged yet. > (for overview and details see > https://crashcourse.housegordon.org/coreutils-multibyte-support.html ). Nice summary. Is there any reason why Eric's patches are not mentioned there? > These patches complement some of the on-going patches, > while other aspects still need to be addressed. > (unfortunately they were developed from scratch instead > of relying on existing efforts, so merging them is also work). Would it help to mention your summary in coreutils FAQ to avoid duplicated work in the future? > As with all volunteer efforts, these things take time > (at least I'm a volunteer, not working for a company that supports > coreutils or free-software works). > > A major hurdle is supporting more limited environments > such as cygwin, and yet I don't see redhat putting emphasis > on these efforts - so I can assume it is not a top-priority. Red Hat has been using a downstream multi-byte patch for coreutils at least since 2003 (long time before I joined Red Hat): https://partner-bugzilla.redhat.com/82032 It sort of works now, so there is no big demand to re-implement it properly. Suse uses the same patch, as far as I know. Kamil > If we could assume only sane environments (e.g proper and efficient mbcs > libc support and 32-bit wchar_t) then all these features would've > been included long ago (IMHO). > > regards, > - assaf
