Re: Issue #872 -- who wants to do it?

Greg Stein wrote:

>On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 09:38:34PM +0100, Branko Cibej wrote:
>
>
>>...
>>That's why I'd still go with GNU libiconv. However, I'm 99% certain that
>>patches for APR t natively support GNU libiconv won't be accepted, se
>>we'd have to roll our own APR on Windows.
>>
>>
>
>*optionally* using iconv should be no problem. It just gets hairy when you
>require the thing. I don't see a reason that patches for optional linkage
>would be rejected...
>
>
Well, I had done exactly that before, and got shot down -- IIRC by wrowe
and rbb -- on the grounds that we shouldn't encourage people to use GPL
stuff, that the ASF had "invested" in apr-iconv and so getting it up to
speed should be a priority...

I don't see how they can explain the support for the system iconv on
Unix then, but the impression I got was a big "-1" waiting around the
corner.

-- 
Brane Čibej   <brane_at_xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org