LOCALE, Ltd.?

[Marc G. Fournier]

On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, rob_spellberg wrote:

> illoai at gmail.com wrote:
>> On 4/4/06, Kevin Kinsey <kdk at 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.
>
>
> 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 at hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664