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(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073