From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Aug  9 02:11:50 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id CAA25796
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 02:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA25791
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 02:11:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id CAA28546; Fri, 9 Aug 1996 02:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
To: hosokawa@mt.cs.keio.ac.jp (HOSOKAWA Tatsumi)
cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: New L10N boot floppy for 2.1.5-RELEASE 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 09 Aug 1996 17:33:01 +0900."
             <199608090833.RAA24298@frig.mt.cs.keio.ac.jp> 
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 1996 02:11:11 -0700
Message-ID: <28544.839581871@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Sources (patches to src/release) are found at

I've had the chance to look at these a little and have some
reservations.

1. The PCCARD stuff appears to be mixed in.  I've nothing against
   PCCARD support at all, I would just prefer it to be expressed in
   different diffs so that we can pick and choose I18N changes separately
   from the PCCARD support (what's "L10N" stand for, anyway? :-)

2. What's the rationale behind libdialog_wc?  That definitely has to
   be integrated *somehow* since I think libdialog is evil enough
   without having two copies of it. :-)  If you had to change it this
   much, I think that it's time to argue for a radically different
   abstraction layer for GUI work (which is *not* a bad idea,
   necessarily) or an entirely different way of implementing libdialog.

   I realize that a libdialog_wc solution was probably the most expedient
   one, and an approach I can completely understand, but I think we're
   also supposed to try to set something of an example to the programming
   world here somewhere, and two separate library implementations
   wouldn't be a very good one. :-)

3. The message catalog stuff you did for sysinstall looks reasonable,
   though with the usual effect of making the user interaction
   completely incomprehensible if you're trying to read through or
   trace the code by eye. :-)  Since you have an english message
   catalog, I'd almost suggest removing the #ifdefs for L10N in sysinstall
   which choose one dialog over the other - using the message catalogs all
   the time - except that it also sort of alleviates the incomprehensibility
   problem somewhat. :-)  What to do, what to do..

There's a lot of work here, my lord, you guys must have been really
busy! :-)

					Jordan