[lazarus] Localization site
Marco van de Voort
marcov at stack.nl
Mon Sep 16 10:30:08 EDT 2002
> >> is a lot of duplication and incosistencies with the rest of the
> >> operating system and its applications (read Linux here) as a result.
> >> It's a number of these little things, for example:
> > Common for a all points: your arguments may be true for Linux but FPC
> > runs on a lot of other platforms...
> Wouldn't Cygwin help here?
Do you want to add 130 MB Cygwin to the 10 MB Lazarus?
> I belive gcc is for Windows as well, so it should be possible...
We already use cygwin _parts_, e.g. for the debugger. But it should be
as little as possible. Distributions are _huge_
> > I think the fpc solution is much more user friendly than the default
> > behavior of unix tools, i.e.
> > an integrated "more". Though the terminal line determination may be
> > buggy.
> It does not work at the moment, both line and column determination.
> IMHO, it should be rooted away, or perhaps make this behaviour after a
> switch (like fpc -h). It is the only app that does this, and it confuses
> me as user...
Then your terminal is behaving badly. Are lines and columns variables set
> > A glibc based solution might be unusable for non unix systems thus we
> > want a generic solution. The linux/unix
> > solution might use glibc based code. OTOH we decided a long time ago
> > that the core rtl won't use glibc.
> But this sort of thing (i18n) is a lot of drudgery, noone seems to want
> to do that and maintain that ...
Connecting to glibc is in practice also a can of worms. Note that glibc only
exists on Linux, Dos, Windows and OS/2 (afaik). *BSD has an own libc, so
does Solaris etc.
> I believe you should use glibc for POSIX systems, and specific Win32
> bindings for Windows, just like Lazarus does for Win32/GTK/Qt
Why ? We can't even parse its headers. It would make porting even harder.
We now base the *nix ports directly on a POSIX interface (either kernel
interface, glue code for "special" operating systems, or libc (e.g. embedded
systems). This works very nice. I recently did the basic OpenBSD port in
> IIRC, glibc is present in MacOS X, too. For Win32, I would think glibc
> from Cygwin project could be linked as well...
I would assume MacOS X to use FreeBSD's libc, since its userland is derived
More information about the Lazarus