On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 10:50:44AM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > My only problem with LFS on the issue is that LFS traditionally has not > offered choices. That is, there is only "one true path" through the > book. This makes users who do not need or want UTF-8 proceed on their > own. IMO, this is not desireable.
And to further clarify, an LFS machine as it currently is does *not* automatically use UTF-8. The changes to the LFS book are so that the LFS system *can* use UTF-8 properly if a user requires it. IMO, this is more important than some other packages that aren't really necessary, and yet are (and have been) in the LFS book, such as vim and readline. You may not need UTF-8, but that doesn't mean that the programs we install in LFS shouldn't properly support this excellent means of standardization. I still haven't seen the additions quantified (did I miss it?). What is the difference in size of the new UTF-8 LFS vs a previous by-the-book build? Seeing those figures might help aversions to UTF-8. -- JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
