From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Apr  4 22:40:45 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: chat@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8240D16A401
	for <chat@freebsd.org>; Tue,  4 Apr 2006 22:40:45 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from kdk@daleco.biz)
Received: from ezekiel.daleco.biz (southernuniform.com [66.76.92.18])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E8A243D46
	for <chat@freebsd.org>; Tue,  4 Apr 2006 22:40:45 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from kdk@daleco.biz)
Received: from [192.168.2.2] ([69.27.149.254])
	by ezekiel.daleco.biz (8.13.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k34MdrLv073487
	for <chat@freebsd.org>; Tue, 4 Apr 2006 17:40:14 -0500 (CDT)
	(envelope-from kdk@daleco.biz)
Message-ID: <4432F5AF.4030201@daleco.biz>
Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 17:39:43 -0500
From: Kevin Kinsey <kdk@daleco.biz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060127
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: chat@freebsd.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 
Subject: LOCALE, Ltd.?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Non technical items related to the community
	<freebsd-chat.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat>,
	<mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-chat>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat>,
	<mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 22:40:45 -0000

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?"

-- 
Unprovided with original learning, unformed in the habits of thinking,
unskilled in the arts of composition, I resolved to write a book.
		-- Edward Gibbon