woody bf-utf8 (Re: slang, boot-floppies, and wide character support)
Hi, sorry to be late. I have checked utf8 enabled slang1 and newt
on my unstable.
In <[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org>,
on "13 Apr 2001 19:30:31 -0400",
Adam Di Carlo <email@example.com> wrote:
adam> Would it be possible to get a status update on woody/i18n/utf
adam> boot-floppies once you have done that? Possily put in 'todo' ?
Ah, I see. I'll update the description in 'todo' file.
adam> I assume we're going to have to switch to use the -utf8 versions of
adam> slang/newt, use the new bf-utf package (is that available yet?), and
adam> try to make sure all those message catalogs fit in the root disk, not
adam> to mention worrying about the bugs in LANG_CHOOSER and such (cf
The utf8 enabled slang1 packages seems to be OK, but newt-utf8 packages
needs to be rebuilt with the new utf8 enabled slang1-dev package since
the binary compatibilities are lost. There might be other packages which
need to be rebuilt with the new library, but at least pppconfig (which
uses whiptail) and lynx seems to work without rebuilt as far as I checked
(of course my check might be imperfect, so we need more test thoroughly).
There is another issue on bogl-bterm, which requires libutf8 to work well.
This is discussed later.
In <[🔎] 20010410024203.B17888@ic.uva.nl>,
on "Tue, 10 Apr 2001 02:42:03 +0200",
with "Re: slang, boot-floppies, and wide character support",
Jim Mintha <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
jim> Okay, I have built the packages with the patch. They seem to work
jim> fine but I have no idea how to test the wide character support. Could
jim> some one try them out, or tell me how to go about that.
jim> They are at:
Hi, Jim. This utf8 enabled slang1 packages seems to be OK for me.
There might be problems which I can't find, and there may be some
packages which need to be rebuilt. But we need this utf8 support
in slang1 in order to build woody i18n boot-floppies.
Please upload them, and prepare to receive some new reports on BTS.
I'll close #93277 when these packages are registered (or if possible,
please add "(Closes: #93277)" in your changelog).
Thank you for your work!
In <[🔎] 20010412001839.A10691@artica.id-agora.net>,
on "Thu, 12 Apr 2001 00:18:39 +0100",
Enrique Zanardi <email@example.com> wrote:
ezanardi> I have built newt packages with the utf8 patch. They are at
ezanardi> http://people.debian.org/~ezanard (there's a shared library,
ezanardi> libnewt-utf8-0 and a PIC kit, libnewt-utf8-pic).
ezanardi> Please, check them and tell me if they work fine, so I can upload them to
Hi, Enrique. As far as I checked, this libnewt-utf8-0 does not work
with the utf8 enabled slang1 packages above (pppconfig failed at
internal error). Please rebuilt them with the new slang1 packages,
and then upload them.
Again, there might be problems which I can't find, and I can't
guarantee that no packages need to be rebuilt with libnewt-utf8-0.
But we need this utf8 support in newt in order to build woody i18n
boot-floppies. So please upload them after rebuilt with the new
slang1 packages, and prepare to receive some new reports on BTS.
I'll close #93276 when these packages are registered (or if possible,
please add "(Closes: #93276)" in your changelog).
Thank you for your work!
Now, when we'll get those utf8-enabled slang1 and newt packages,
we might also need bogl-bterm to show utf8 messages. And it requires
libutf8 (and the root priviledge) to work well even on the current
unstable (i.e. with our libc6_2.2.2-4 package).
So we should provide libutf8 package, or make bogl-bterm statically
linked to libutf8 library.
Which option is better ?
And also we need bdftobogl command with mergebdf perl script,
both of them could be made from the source package of bogl-bterm.
They are used when we generate bogl font (.bgf) from bdf fonts
which is in bf-utf package.
Taketoshi Sano: <firstname.lastname@example.org>,<email@example.com>,<firstname.lastname@example.org>