On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 12:26:32PM +0000, Philip Blundell wrote: > On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 09:47, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > > > I've noticed some udebs require on libslang.so.1, while the cdebconf > > > > slang frontend require libslang.so.1-UTF8. Should all udeb programs > > > > and libraries link with UTF8 versions of libraries, or should we leave > > > > it to the package maintainers? > > > > > > I was kind of hoping that we would be able to do away with the non-UTF8 > > > libraries altogether during the sarge development cycle. Everything > > > should be linking against the UTF8 versions in absence of any compelling > > > reason to do differently. > > > > me also thinks that should be the case, except for an oddball > > (whiptail.so, which provides utf-8 verison and non-utf8 version), > > or unless the packages doesn't work with utf-8 version (which is > > rather unlikely, or broken). > > Well, the obvious way to go about that is to rename the current > slang1-utf8-dev to slang1-dev so that package builds start using it by > default. I'm not sure if there are any other libraries like newt that > would need to make a coordinated switch. > > I've copied this to the slang maintainer, to see what his thoughts are > on the matter.
I would love to get rid of the two versions of the libraries. The last time I believe there were problems with some packages not working well with the UTF8 version. I have to look at it again to remember exactly what. This is the time to fix it. My feeling is that with some work and coordination this should be possible. I will look over the history tonight to remind myself of the issues. Jim -- Jim Mintha Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] System Administrator Work: +31 20 525-4919 Informatiseringscentrum Home: +31 20 662-3892 University of Amsterdam Debian GNU/Linux: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _There are always Possibilities_ http://www.mintha.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]