Re: slrn 1.0 [2007-08-25]?

On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 05:02:28PM +0200, Thomas Wiegner wrote:
 
> Does it make sense to make iconv a "must" dependency and to remove
> all "have no iconv" code?

Definitely yes. That would ease maintenance.

Better to drop the possibility to port slrn to architectures which don't
come along with iconv (and which are not that very important for the
existing slrn-community in my eyes) and gain stability and active
developement in exchange for that. There are only few developers
actively involved in slrn and one should face that simple fact together
with it's implications. The iconv thing together with real utf-8 support
*is* what is urgently needed in the stable branch. And Developement
would be easier without the need to look at 1001 #ifdef possibilities
which only a few people in the world do really need or use.

Version 1.0 is a good opportunity to drop slang 1.* and non-iconv
support. The mourning would surely come but it would be short ;-)




Bernd

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/