UTF-8

Tushar Teredesai sukucorp at gmail.com
Fri Jan 20 10:36:21 PST 2006


On 1/20/06, Jim Gifford <lfs at jg555.com> wrote:
> Tushar Teredesai wrote:
> > On 1/20/06, Jim Gifford <lfs at jg555.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This discussion needs to happen on both lfs-dev and cross-lfs, everyone
> >> in lfs-dev seems to want it, but people in cross-lfs don't need it.
> >> That's why I started the thread on both lists.
> >>
> >
> > Why the division? I thought cross-lfs was just a way of building LFS
> > from arch X to arch Y but in all other respects it would be similar to
> > LFS. The end result of the two books should not be different (unless
> > it is absolutely warranted e.g. bootloaders). If I am build LFS and
> > cross LFS with target architecture of x86, the installation should be
> > identical.
> >
> >
> That's the question. Why is there a division between the two different
> communities, we got LFS that really wants it bad, and Cross-LFS where
> they don't see a need for it. That's what I've been trying to figure out.
>
> My feelings are I'm willing to try utf-8, but I don't think it's
> completely ready yet. I have an issue with Man-db and adding Berkeley
> DB(I just hate the constant ABI changes). I also see a problem with the
> new groff depending on netpbm (Alex did find a way around that.)
>

The point I am trying to make is that all *LFS folks are part of the
same group. If some folks did not like UTF-8 compatibility (note that
LFS did not move to UTF8 like Redhat but just because more usable by
folks irrespective of which language they wanted their LFS
installation to speak) they should have spoken when the discussions
were active on lfs-dev. (Actualy, folks who don't like the change can
still start a discussion on lfs-dev on removing UTF8 compatibility:)
There was also a big discussion on lfs-dev w.r.t. choosing bdb/gdbm. I
was for using gdbm instead of bdb and I spoke my mind at that time.

Even if *all* BLFS editors wanted gdbm instead of bdb, BLFS still
cannot choose to ignore the fact that bdb is in LFS and have to modify
BLFS according to the change.

Regarding UTF8 not being ready, it is still better than no UTF8
compatbility at all. And as the packages get better, so will the
compatbility.

--
Tushar Teredesai
   mailto:tushar at linuxfromscratch.org
   http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/



More information about the cross-lfs mailing list