[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug-diffutils] Re: [patch] i18n patch for diffutils
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
[bug-diffutils] Re: [patch] i18n patch for diffutils |
Date: |
Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:45:21 +0100 |
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:02:15 +0100, Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> However, in this case, the patch ends up duplicating
>> a lot of important logic, and I'm holding out hope
>> that we'll end up with multibyte support that avoids
>> that maintenance pitfall while still retaining most of
>> the single-byte performance.
>
> I notice that Padraig Brady mentioned libunistring when a similar
> issue was noted in Coreutils (pinky) -
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2010-01/msg00234.html.
That's the plan.
> Do GNU projects have a consistent stance on the use of that relatively
> new library as a dependency? I'm wondering if diffutils were
It sounds fine to me, and I'm confident that at least coreutils
and diffutils will have a consistent stance ;-)
> interested in utilising it, would it be OK for a patch that did so to
> have it as a hard dependency, to save having to have multiple branches
> in the code to handle its presence/absence?
That's a fine place to start. Once we have something acceptable,
if someone wants badly enough to build without that library, they'll
find a way to contribute the patch.