On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Peter von Kaehne <ref...@gmx.net> wrote: > > Matthew Talbert wrote: > > My bias against ICU is that I have never been able to successfully > > compile against it, either on Windows or Linux. That has been quite a > > while ago, so I should try again. Also, I believe for a while, ICU > > wasn't included in many distros (this is just based off of comments > > I've seen), but now it is at least for Ubuntu. > > I think the main problem is that a lot of ICU utilities are not actually > in the Ubuntu package. > > Or at least they were not when I last time looked. Some were bizarrely > in libicu-dev. > > Compiling ICU directly from IBM's source was an extremely clean job when > I did it a year or so ago. Never had so little difficulty compiling > anything. But the difference is marked between that and teh run of teh > mill Ubuntu package. I am not sure if this affects something, but bear > it in mind. > > Another related matter - if size matters, I think it is relatively > straight forward to cut out irrelevant aspects from ICU. I have seen a > couple of articles on that. > > Peter
Peter, I never tried to compile ICU itself. I was simply trying to compile SWORD with ICU. Presumably we shouldn't need the utilities to distribute binaries compiled against ICU. Matthew _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
