On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 09:29:46AM -0500, Nicholas Wourms wrote:
rlc wrote:
Please don't: we already have a perfectly good iconv implementation in the
distribution and there's no law against providing iconv as a separate
library from the kernel/libc/whatnot.
Of course it isn't against the
Please don't: we already have a perfectly good iconv implementation in the
distribution and there's no law against providing iconv as a separate library
from the kernel/libc/whatnot. By far most applications don't care too much
about transcoding, so most applications would simply have to carry
wrote:
Please don't: we already have a perfectly good iconv implementation in the
distribution and there's no law against providing iconv as a separate library
from the kernel/libc/whatnot.
Of course it isn't against the law, but the fact is that most modern,
non-microsoft, libc's provide it.
The below is just an FYI.
This means that the iconv stuff could be built into the DLL, bloating the dll
even more I suppose.
Is this something that we want to do? I vote no, but I thought I should mention
this to the collective wisdom of cygwin-apps since it essentially boils down to
a package
