Re: Win32 unicode vs ICU

Palle Girgensohn wrote:
> > I feel it makes sense to apply the smaller patch in any case, so that
> > there's a Win32 solution not requiring ICU (ie, I can't see an argument
> > for doing (2) rather than (3)).
> >
> > Comments?
> 
> I don't mind either way, but while Win32 will work with Magnus' patch, 
> FreeBSD won't; it needs the ICU patch to work. OTH, I maintain the FreeBSD 
> port where I already have the patch as an ("experiemental") option. Not 
> every FreeBSD user uses the ports system, though.
> 
> So, it is a question whether FreeBSD's unicode support is important or not, 
> I guess? Win32 will work both ways.

How is FreeBSD's Unicode support broken?  I was not aware of that.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
359-1001+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073