Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 18:26:40 -0500 From: "illoai@gmail.com" <illoai@gmail.com> To: "Kevin Kinsey" <kdk@daleco.biz> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LOCALE, Ltd.? Message-ID: <d7195cff0604041626i4488742bs50935b784aae0975@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4432F5AF.4030201@daleco.biz> References: <4432F5AF.4030201@daleco.biz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. -- --
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d7195cff0604041626i4488742bs50935b784aae0975>