Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 21:40:07 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> To: rob_spellberg <emailrob@emailrob.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LOCALE, Ltd.? Message-ID: <20060404213917.X947@ganymede.hub.org> In-Reply-To: <443300C7.4030703@emailrob.com> References: <4432F5AF.4030201@daleco.biz> <d7195cff0604041626i4488742bs50935b784aae0975@mail.gmail.com> <443300C7.4030703@emailrob.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, rob_spellberg wrote: > illoai@gmail.com wrote: >> On 4/4/06, Kevin Kinsey <kdk@daleco.biz> wrote: >> >>> I'd been talking on a forum with a Linux database guy, >>> and he mentioned that on the PostGres lists, people >>> would "love to use *BSD" but the locale support is limited. >>> >>> Well, sure 'nough, `locale -a | wc -l` seems to be in the >>> mid-200s here, and his systems have over 550 locales. >>> >>> I've probably not RTFM'ed enough, but I'm just looking >>> for a short answer. What does FreeBSD need to have >>> more locales*? I'm assuming the answer is, more people >>> in more locations willing to take the time to RTFM and >>> submit patches to $x team..... >>> >>> Discussion? Linkage? Slaps to the head? >>> >>> Kevin Kinsey >>> >>> >>> * and, of course, an obvious counter question: *does* FreeBSD >>> need to have more LOCALES?" >> >> >> I would not think that it could hurt. >> But I tend to think that even spurious >> locales would be sexy to have. > > > sexy locales never hurt, but locale bloat is distinctly spurious. The last I checked, the reason why PostgreSQL implimented UNICODE support was to avoid having to add every locale under the sun ... is there something UNICODE *doesn't* handle? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060404213917.X947>