Re: libutf8, bogl, bgf fonts and tools vs boot-floppies
On Sun, May 27, 2001 at 10:28:10PM +0100, Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>:
>
> > > We need to have the stuff in subject included in bf bould
> > > process somehow. The question is: how? AFAIK bterm has its own
> > > package (bogl-bterm), as does bdf fonts' source. (Now we either
> > > need to put libutf8 in its package or make bterm work without
> > > it - I'd say we should do the former, since it's probably
> > > easier and so require less time).
> >
> > No, the latter. Since I did it several months ago; see bogl-bterm's
> > changelog. Oops. Wait. I forgot to upload that; I'm sorry. I'll do
> > it soon.
>
> I may have committed a fix for the same bug today. Please check.
Indeed you did, and it's a similar fix. This is what I originally
did:
@@ -206,18 +206,11 @@
- for (; (k = mbrtowc (&wc, s, n, &term->ps)) >= 0; s += k, n -= k)
+ for (; n > 0 && (k = mbrtowc (&wc, s, n, &term->ps)) >= 0; s += k, n -= k)
Your patch seems rather more complete; should I use that instead?
Sorry for snapping at you earlier, I missed this message.
On Mon, May 28, 2001 at 01:00:09AM +0200, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> But you commited to bf CVS, right? So should we use the
> packaged or CVS version? I'm confused.
Packaged. I'll fix it.
> BTW: now that we use glibc's UTF8 support, what locale should
> we use? I've found en_IN.UTF-8 (in my /etc/locale.gen) to work,
> but I don't even know what that means.
Indian, I think...
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Monta Vista Software Debian Security Team
Reply to: