From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 5 00:40:08 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-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 33C4216A426 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2006 00:40:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACDCD43D45 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2006 00:40:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F5F5824539; Tue, 4 Apr 2006 21:39:55 -0300 (ADT) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 51512-07; Tue, 4 Apr 2006 21:40:06 -0300 (ADT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-222-82-85.eastlink.ca [24.222.82.85]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22F3A824535; Tue, 4 Apr 2006 21:39:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7F9B63BD48; Tue, 4 Apr 2006 21:40:07 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7980A3B397; Tue, 4 Apr 2006 21:40:07 -0300 (ADT) Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2006 21:40:07 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: rob_spellberg In-Reply-To: <443300C7.4030703@emailrob.com> Message-ID: <20060404213917.X947@ganymede.hub.org> References: <4432F5AF.4030201@daleco.biz> <443300C7.4030703@emailrob.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 00:40:08 -0000 On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, rob_spellberg wrote: > illoai@gmail.com wrote: >> On 4/4/06, Kevin Kinsey 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