httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Trawick <trawi...@bellsouth.net>
Subject Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/lib/apr/i18n/win32/iconv/ces - Newdirectory
Date Mon, 20 Nov 2000 15:27:15 GMT
"William A. Rowe, Jr." <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> writes:

> > From: rbb@covalent.net [mailto:rbb@covalent.net]
> > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 8:57 AM
> > 
> > On 20 Nov 2000, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> > 
> > > wrowe@locus.apache.org writes:
> > > 
> > > > wrowe       00/11/20 05:32:04
> > > > 
> > > >   apache-2.0/src/lib/apr/i18n/win32/iconv/ces - New directory
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Ow... Perhaps it should have been obvious to me yesterday 
> > where you were
> > > going to place an alternative translation library (but it 
> > wasn't :) )...
> > > 
> > > not every Unix platform has iconv() (e.g., the FreeBSD box I have at
> > > home)...  I would have thought we would put this somewhere for all
> > > platforms to use as appropriate
> > > 
> > > perhaps not a problem and/or you've already thought of this...
> > > 
> > > (going for more caffeine)
> > 
> > This is my fault, so I will take the blame.  Will asked me 
> > where I thought
> > it should go, and I thought this was just for Win32 
> > platforms.  If there
> > are unix platforms that don't have this code, then we should do code
> > sharing.  There is no real problem where-ever this code 
> > lives, we could
> > just compile out of that directory for any platform that needs it.
> > 
> > I personally suggest that we move the code from win32/iconv to unix/iconv
> > to be consistent.  We will need to modify the unix i18n code to use this
> > library iff there is no native support.
> 
> +1...

+1 from me for moving to unix/iconv (Real Soon Now) and for teaching
configure and the unix i18n code when to use this (when somebody needs
it or somebody has the time)

> is there disagreement with merging the three packages into one tree?
> (iconv, iconv-extra and iconv-rfc1345)

I'll trust your judgement... my generic concern is that it be simple
to upgrade to a later version of the package

> is there disagreement with yanking the GPL'ed docs?

we have to do that, I imagine...  I guess we can replace it with a
single file that points to where the GPL-ed docs live?  (hopefully
that form of linking in GPL-ed stuff is o.k. :) )

-- 
Jeff Trawick | trawick@ibm.net | PGP public key at web site:
     http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
          Born in Roswell... married an alien...

Mime
View raw message