Re: Should all udeb binaries use UTF8 libraries?
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 12:26:32PM +0000, Philip Blundell wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-01-26 at 09:47, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> > > > I've noticed some udebs require on libslang.so.1, while the cdebconf
> > > > slang frontend require libslang.so.1-UTF8. Should all udeb programs
> > > > and libraries link with UTF8 versions of libraries, or should we leave
> > > > it to the package maintainers?
> > >
> > > I was kind of hoping that we would be able to do away with the non-UTF8
> > > libraries altogether during the sarge development cycle. Everything
> > > should be linking against the UTF8 versions in absence of any compelling
> > > reason to do differently.
> >
> > me also thinks that should be the case, except for an oddball
> > (whiptail.so, which provides utf-8 verison and non-utf8 version),
> > or unless the packages doesn't work with utf-8 version (which is
> > rather unlikely, or broken).
>
> Well, the obvious way to go about that is to rename the current
> slang1-utf8-dev to slang1-dev so that package builds start using it by
> default. I'm not sure if there are any other libraries like newt that
> would need to make a coordinated switch.
>
> I've copied this to the slang maintainer, to see what his thoughts are
> on the matter.
I would love to get rid of the two versions of the libraries. The
last time I believe there were problems with some packages not working
well with the UTF8 version. I have to look at it again to remember
exactly what. This is the time to fix it. My feeling is that with
some work and coordination this should be possible. I will look over
the history tonight to remind myself of the issues.
Jim
--
Jim Mintha Email: j.t.mintha@uva.nl
System Administrator Work: +31 20 525-4919
Informatiseringscentrum Home: +31 20 662-3892
University of Amsterdam Debian GNU/Linux: jmintha@debian.org
_There are always Possibilities_ http://www.mintha.com
Reply to: