On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 01:32:21PM +0100, Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas wrote: > Tinker <ti...@openmailbox.org> writes: > > > On 2015-12-16 05:04, j...@wxcvbn.org 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? > > > > I need normalize() to do Unicode normalization! > > I'm glad to hear that you want to do Unicode normalization using ICU, > that is not a valid answer to what I said above. > > We have one report here: > > http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=144171504417490&w=2 > > jirib didn't confirm that ICU was the only thing needed to make his > aegisub port work, and to my knowledge no existing port requires ICU in > boost. The only benefit I can see so far is to have a boost package > similar to other distros.
I wonder if adding ICU support to boost would unbreak manik. -- Antoine
