Hi Eike; FWIW, building ICU 4.8 on FreeBSD required a patch for the memory issue I reported in an older thread. This kind of fixes are better handled by distributions .. and certain OO forks already do this.
cheers, Pedro. --- On Wed, 7/20/11, Eike Rathke <[email protected]> wrote: ... > Hi Javier, > > On Wednesday, 2011-07-20 15:27:03 +0700, Javier Sola > wrote: > > > If I remember correctly and unless it has changed, > some patches were > > applied to ICU during the build. This required a > specific version of > > ICU to which the patches were applied, > > Correct, though with the update to ICU 4.* there are only a > very few > patches left, see > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ICU/bugs_and_patches > > The most problematic is the RPATH for URE patch, but I have > no idea > anyway how to proceed with libstdc++.so.6 and libgcc_s.so.1 > that so far > were distributed with the URE and are LGPL. If we don't, > then the patch > would be moot. > > > and this is why the ICU > > source was kept inside the OOo source (I believe). > > Yes and no, initially packages were hosted by OOo whenever > possible, > interfaces (API and ABI) may change between versions, > especially > upgrading ICU from 2.6 to 3.6 required code changes in OOo > and still > gave us lot of headaches later (read regressions) as quite > some behavior > changed. It's easier to stay with a defined version. > > However, in case of ICU I currently don't see a real > problem to go with > system ICU when available, that's what distributions do > since ages. > > In fact using a more recent ICU usually has more benefits > than > disadvantages. > > Eike > > -- > PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private > communication. > Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 > 2F1A D073 293C 05FD >
