Difference between revisions of "Talk:DevTools:ICU"
(→Why not work upstream?: new section) |
David Haslam (talk | contribs) (→Which version of Unicode does our libsword ICU support?: new section) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
== Why not work upstream? == | == Why not work upstream? == | ||
| − | Can I ask why icu-sword is being maintained as a fork instead of pushing the additional features upstream? I am working on packaging several tools (including Xiphos and Lyricue) for another distro. We have icu already and it seems like adding an icu-sword package will only create conflicts. | + | Can I ask why icu-sword is being maintained as a fork instead of pushing the additional features upstream? I am working on packaging several tools (including Xiphos and Lyricue) for another distro. We have icu already and it seems like adding an icu-sword package will only create conflicts. -- [[User:alerque|Caleb Maclennan]] 10:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC) |
| + | |||
| + | In theory, the custom stuff in $src_dir/icu contains all of the additions that are in icu-sword. These extra transliterators work in *nix, but not on Windows which is why I suspect the fork is primarily for. [[User:Mwtalbert|Mwtalbert]] 23:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | The ICU material in the sword source tree is unmaintained, and has been roughly since it was first committed. It's on my todo list to delete it since I don't think it is useful to anyone. I'm planning to contribute our data additions to Unicode CLDR, and spoke with one of the CLDR people about it recently, but haven't had the time. The only other unique feature of icu-sword is that it has some Borland C++Builder 5 projects. --[[User:Osk|Osk]] 06:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Which version of Unicode does our libsword ICU support? == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Which version of Unicode does our libsword ICU support? [[User:David Haslam|David Haslam]] 06:33, 10 October 2011 (MDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 12:33, 10 October 2011
Unused locales?
How does CrossWire keep track of which locales to remove from ICU to build icu-sword? As we continue to widen the number of supported locales in various front-end applications, especially Xiphos, is there a risk that the build process for icu-sword will fail to keep track of what is required? David Haslam 10:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Why not work upstream?
Can I ask why icu-sword is being maintained as a fork instead of pushing the additional features upstream? I am working on packaging several tools (including Xiphos and Lyricue) for another distro. We have icu already and it seems like adding an icu-sword package will only create conflicts. -- Caleb Maclennan 10:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
In theory, the custom stuff in $src_dir/icu contains all of the additions that are in icu-sword. These extra transliterators work in *nix, but not on Windows which is why I suspect the fork is primarily for. Mwtalbert 23:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The ICU material in the sword source tree is unmaintained, and has been roughly since it was first committed. It's on my todo list to delete it since I don't think it is useful to anyone. I'm planning to contribute our data additions to Unicode CLDR, and spoke with one of the CLDR people about it recently, but haven't had the time. The only other unique feature of icu-sword is that it has some Borland C++Builder 5 projects. --Osk 06:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Which version of Unicode does our libsword ICU support?
Which version of Unicode does our libsword ICU support? David Haslam 06:33, 10 October 2011 (MDT)
