jhuntwork at linuxfromscratch.org
Fri Jan 20 10:52:41 PST 2006
Chris Staub wrote:
> I don't think anyone is debating that they aren't being forced to use
> UTF-8 locales. However, the issue is that if you never do use a UTF-8
> locale, then the UTF-8 code just sits there unnecessarily taking up
> space. It isn't a question of whether it "works" - I *know* that
> non-UTF-8 locales will work fine with UTF-8-enable LFS - it's that if
> the extra disk space and memory being taking up is not needed, then it
> shouldn't be there.
Please be specific about which extra code exists and that is wasting
space. If this is really a valid concern, I'd like to see it quantified.
How much of a difference in space is there now between what LFS was
before the UTF-8 merge and now?
As far as man-db or Berkeley DB, we already know about the objection to
those and I don't think any of us would mind if a better alternative was
found. Also, Jim has mentioned the man developers interest in quickly
getting proper UTF-8 support into his package. So if we just keep
pointing at only those changes it would be like beating a dead horse.
More information about the cross-lfs