[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Is lack of UTF support an RC bug? [was: Bug#386299: ekg2: Plugin/program compilation option mismatch]

On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 02:46:16AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> severity 386299 serious
> thanks
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 06:14:55PM +0100, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> > Unicode support in ekg2 is highly experimental and not yet supported
> > upstream, therefore the debian package is built without UTF-8 support.
> > On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 05:56:17PM +0200, Tristan Seligmann wrote:
> > > Attempting to run ekg2 yields the following:
> > Try running it in some iso-8859 locale.
> That's not an acceptable answer, given that almost all locales for etch will
> be Unicode by default.  This makes the package unreleasable.  Of course, the
> package seems to only be in experimental at all, so I don't see why you
> would bother to downgrade the bug...

It doesn't matter for ekg2, which will stay in experimental for quite a
while I'm afraid, but it is important for at least two other of my
packages (which are in etch) which don't support UTF-8 at all. And I'm
reasonably sure they are not the only packages in etch which don't
support UTF.

Who decided that we should just drop them all? After all generating a
non-UTF locale and setting an environment variable isn't a very
difficult workaround? I mean, when has lack of UTF support become an
RC-bug? Charset support is not even mentioned in the policy, other than
for debian/changelog.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against UTF-8, but just dropping everything
that doesn't support it, without a former warning, sounds ridiculous.


Marcin Owsiany <porridge@debian.org>             http://marcin.owsiany.pl/
GnuPG: 1024D/60F41216  FE67 DA2D 0ACA FC5E 3F75  D6F6 3A0D 8AA0 60F4 1216

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: