[lazarus] Localization site

[Michal Bukovjan]

Marco van de Voort wrote:

>>Wouldn't Cygwin help here?
>>    
>>
>
>Do you want to add 130 MB Cygwin to the 10 MB Lazarus?
>
:-) No.

>>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
>correctly?
>
I resize my terminal (gnome-terminal) any way I see fit. "more", "less", 
"info", "man", Midnight Commander, all work just fine at any size.

>
>  
>
>>>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
>two evenings.
> 
>  
>
>>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
>from it.
>
I though glibc == libc these days.
Looks like locale aware sorting won't be available anytime soon.
But FPC is not the only kid on the block... I recently wrote some simple 
code in C for Firebird 1.x (great SQL engine, originally from Borland), 
and they do the same... rewriting all intl stuff from scratch. Tons of 
code.  :-(
Looks like every major app does things again, and again... There goes 
code reuse. (sigh)

Michal