Re: [bug-gnu-libiconv] Solaris libiconv vs. GNU libiconv in terms of 646

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi Bruno,

Am 03.04.2008 um 20:19 schrieb Bruno Haible:
> Dagobert Michelsen wrote:
> > > > It looks like Solaris uses 646 as standard which is
> > > > known to Solaris libiconv but not GNU libiconv.
> > >
> > > This situation has been addressed in full generality - there is  
> > > not only
> > > Solaris and "646", there is also HP-UX and "hp15CN", and many  
> > > others -
> > > in the gnulib module 'iconv_open', here:
> >
> > As I understand it there should be an encodings_solaris.def similar
> > to the files for osf1 and aix with the mappings from charset.alias
> > or am I getting something completely wrong here?
>
> If you try to make all software understand the nonstandard encoding  
> names that
> Solaris uses, then you have a lot to do. It's ranging from libiconv  
> (where
> modifying the encodings*.def files would be the way to go, as you  
> say) over
> mutt up to X11.

I see. But why has this work been done for aix and osf1 then?
Do they have a less difficult set of mappings than solaris?

> It is more promising and less work to make all software support and  
> use the
> *standard* encoding names.

From a point of portability of the softwares it would.
However, patching dozens of softwares seems more work to
me than providing an encoding_solaris.def. Would you
accept a patch providing the solaris encodings?


Best regards

  -- Dago