Alexander E. Patrakov([EMAIL PROTECTED])@Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 11:45:50AM +0500: > Chris Staub wrote: > > >I don't think anyone is debating that they aren't being forced to use > >UTF-8 locales. However, the issue is that if you never do use a UTF-8 > >locale, then the UTF-8 code just sits there unnecessarily taking up > >space. It isn't a question of whether it "works" - I *know* that > >non-UTF-8 locales will work fine with UTF-8-enable LFS - it's that if > >the extra disk space and memory being taking up is not needed, then it > >shouldn't be there. > > > Well, at this point we definitely need two books, because: > > 1) addition of UTF-8 violated one important LFS policy: don't fix > non-important bugs (i.e., those invisible to at least one reader). > Changing this would make LFS a distro. > 2) jhalfs needs a linear book. > 3) there are readers that want UTF-8 enabled version of LFS. > > So: please revert my patch from trunk, make a branch. The patch was > never really ready for merging, for non-technical reasons that realized > only now. If this unmerging is not done, I will waste time in flame wars > instead of fixing real bugs. > Sorry if i am not qualified to contribute to the discussion.
But I wrote it once. Why We don't use a *permanent* experimental branch? Make there the early development (alphabetical,udev,unicode etc...),bring the adopted changes to the dev-branch,freeze/test it,release it. The release circle will be sorted,i believe. Regards. Ag. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
