locales, nls - supportable or not?

Dan Nicholson dbn.lists at gmail.com
Sat Nov 18 07:37:43 PST 2006

On 11/18/06, Alexander E. Patrakov <patrakov at ums.usu.ru> wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> >  AFAIK. we don't claim to support all problems, whether from locales
> > or from anything else - over time, the community's knowledge
> > increases, and people get better support.
> It is implicit that the editors believe the book to be good, up to date,
> and worth following.

I think this statement really brings to the forefront where the
demands you place come from. I think those are very worthy goals, and
in the best case it would be completely true. But, we just can't do
that. There are roughly 3 active editors on B/LFS right now. We can't
possibly have an in-depth knowledge of every issue on a Linux system.

> Thus, I insist that for every little thing that is present in the book,
> there must be an editor who understands it fully. If there is no such
> editor, this thing has to be dropped. I don't count as an editor mainly
> because the last LFS system I built is LFS-6.2, and my knowledge is not
> up to date.

No one here understands glibc. Should that be removed from the book?
Seriously, if people want that level of support, this is not the place
to get it. There are big distros like Fedora and Ubuntu that have tons
of developers that are professionally employed that can track every
single issue that can happen on a Linux system. The new kernel headers
are causing breakage here and there. Does that mean that one of the
editors needs to have C and kernel development experience?

I think there's a fundamental difference here in what you expect the
support level to be and what I (and I think most people) expect the
support level to be. When I read the glibc or gcc page, I know it was
not written by people that have an in depth knowledge about how either
of those tools work. But I know that it was written by people who put
forth their best effort to see if it worked for them in their use
case. To me, all I can hope for is that it works well in my use case
and if it doesn't, hopefully the issues can be tracked down.

Look at BLFS. Is there any possible way that between Bruce, Randy, DJ,
Ken and I that we have an in depth understanding about how
Kerberos/LDAP/SSL/SMTP/X11/etc. work? Not a chance in the world.

What makes LFS fun for me is having the chance to build things myself
and investigate them with a group of like minded people. I'm not here
for high level support. If I have an issue with my mail server, I put
it on blfs-support and hope for the best. Maybe Ken or someone else
has seen the same thing.

For this particular case, maybe you're right. Maybe this is too far
removed from the current set of editors skills to get right with all
the patches and use cases. If people would rather not have UTF-8 in
the book because it's not working and they can't get decent answers
from the editors, then I would be for removing it.

What I have an issue with here is that the level of support you expect
is not in any way realistic.


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list