Re: Trying to fix slang

[Glenn Maynard <g_deb@zewt.org>]

On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 11:24:09AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > What reasons are there to use the non-UTF8 version?  Being able to drop in
> > different versions is neat, but if there's no reason to use the non-UTF8
> > version, why lose sleep over it?  
> 
> I've read the source, and I think non-UTF8 version has support for 
> locales that are not UTF8.

The UTF8 one should support non-UTF8 locales, too.  If it doesn't, this
should probably be considered a bug, though it might be one too
complicated to fix right now.

The only problem I've seen is mutt-utf8 not displaying line drawing
characters properly in non-UTF8 locales.  I havn't used it that way
extensively, however.

> > Of course, the #define UTF8 problem needs to be fixed; the non-UTF8
> > prototypes should never be used when linking against the UTF8 library.
> 
> Yes, please check the diff/upload pending that I have done.
> It should solve most problems, if not all that exist in 
> the current version.

Looking at it quickly, I see:

+/* dancer@debian.org, check for UTF8 flags */
+@DEBIANUTF8ERRORCHECK@ UTF8
+#error "UTF8 symbol does not match slang UTF8 status"
+#endif

Programs shouldn't need to #define UTF8 explicitely just because they're
linking against the UTF8 version of slang.  I'd just #define UTF8
automatically.  (But #undef it at the end if it's not the slang library
itself, or rename it to something better like SLANG_UTF8.)

> I don't really care about converting every program to 
> UTF8, or making new slang1 package that is binary incompatible with upstream
> versions and every other distribution, or whatever else.

You don't care about any possible solutions other than this one?  Your
solution is the *obvious* one; there must be something less obvious
holding up such a fix, or it would probably have been done long ago.

I'm not suggesting converting any programs to UTF8, I'm just offering
alternatives.

-- 
Glenn Maynard