samba-3.0.0beta1 codeset issue on non-Linux
a.bokovoy at sam-solutions.net
Fri Jun 13 17:51:11 GMT 2003
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 05:08:48PM +0100, David Lee wrote:
> > > Which begs further questions about whether we want (or perhaps need) to
> > > allow multi-stage charset conversion.
> > GNU iconv library is really your friend in that case.
> OK. For me, at my site, it may be my possible friend.
I understand your willingness to develop generic solution.
> My personal view is that it would be unwise for Samba to _require_ a prior
> installation of GNU's iconv. However if such GNU-based functionality is
> required, then bundling "iconv" (or a subset thereof) with Samba might be
> the solution. Note that every autoconf application already does a similar
> bundling exercise, namely with the "config.guess" family of files.
The problem is that we can't just provide CP850<->UCS-2LE and be happy. To
iterate your points above, there might be different organizations when
CP850 isn't accepted just because it doesn't cover needed characters --
I'm speaking about Non-Latin-1 world.
So the problem really is to what degree we (developers+users+OS vendors)
need to cooperate to get:
- working Samba 3.0 for large subset of codesets
- working native iconv implementations in cases where they are broken
> So the questions:
> 1. Are we going to _require_ GNU's iconv at every site? (I.e. refuse to
> install samba if GNU iconv not already installed.) I hope not.
I hope too. However, if something broken, it needs to be fixed. For broken
native iconv implementations OS vendors might be those who take
responsibility as well.
> 2. Assuming that we are going to permit (albeit with reduced enthusiasm)
> the native-OS "iconv", what do we do? One of:
> a) What configure tests? Multi-stage? Corresponding code changes?
Multi-stage conversion in samba might require non-trivial code changes
which also include maintenance of following information:
- which iconv implementation has problems with which direct conversions
- available paths for losless multi-stage conversion
> b) Bundle iconv (or part) with samba?
I'm not sure this would be a good solution.
> c) Some other (what?) solution.
Simpliest answer would be to ask OS vendor about fixing their bugs in
iconv implementations but we are realists... So I don't have answer right
/ Alexander Bokovoy
The degree of technical confidence is inversely proportional to the
level of management.
More information about the samba-technical