Aha thank you very much for pointing these things out - great to know
there was a discussion about it.
Aha so maybe for OpenBSD 6.0 we'll have an ICU flavor at least.
I understand that the ICU support in Boost interfered with some other
package so it wasn't completely untrivial to include and that's why you
didn't do it already -
I think I'll try with that flavor as per the patch in the other email,
on my machine, and let you know if I see any issue.
Thank you so much & happy holidays!
Tinker
On 2015-12-16 05:54, j...@wxcvbn.org wrote:
Stuart Henderson <st...@openbsd.org> writes:
On 2015/12/15 22:04, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote:
Tinker <ti...@openmailbox.org> writes:
> What would the decision be based on?
I think that those points should be enough.
- good reasons to use ICU in boost, not just "I need the ICU parts of
Boost.". What would be the benefit for the ports tree?
- someone has to do the work, and that includes checking for
potential
breakage.
And updating WANTLIB :-)
> Everyone just rolling thumbs or is there any real tradeoff?
You tell us. ;)
Also note that this port does have a maintainer.
Duh, indeed. So please also discuss this with Brad.
