On Sat, Jul 05, 2008 at 10:10:28AM -0400, Jim Park wrote: > Clytie pretty much has it right about what's going on with NSIS and Unicode > support. When we were looking for Unicode support in an Open Source > installer package, we looked into NSIS and found no desire to support > Unicode on the part of the developers. After two months of work to get > Unicode support into the NSIS codebase and offering it to the NSIS team, I > thought they'd take it but to my surprise they didn't. They didn't like > certain things about my implementation and held it at that. They talked > about how they'd like to do it better. I said, "Fine. Here's my code, you > can use it to get started." It's been ten months and if you look at the > latest posts, they are still talking about how they can do better. I don't > think they've actually done any development towards Unicode support. (I > hope I am wrong.)
Usually, when you want to get something merged in a project, you're expected to be the one who puts the effort into adapting it to give it the shape they want. Anyway, I don't know all the ins and outs; this was just a general advice. Anyway, if Paul doesn't have any objections with merging your patch in the Debian package, then the problem is solved for us (except for my concern about Windows 98, see below). > My goals were pretty straightforward when I added Unicode support to NSIS. > I wanted only Unicode support since all the software we wanted to ship was > Unicode software. However, in the interest of making sure that this > codebase can be easily integrated into the main NSIS trunk, I made sure that > the same codebase can build the ANSI version of NSIS with just a macro > define during the build. So with the same codebase you can build the ANSI > version of NSIS which will create an installer that works on Win9x and also > the Unicode version of NSIS which will run on Win2000+. For win32-loader, depending on two versions of nsis and providing two separate builds adds a maintenance burden that I'm not willing to bear. What we would really need is for utf-16 to be supported _but_ without making it mandatory to use it in all strings. So if just some languages are utf-16 and Windows 98 doesn't support that, we can enable them conditionaly in runtime. Does your current code allow this? -- Robert Millan <GPLv2> I know my rights; I want my phone call! <DRM> What good is a phone call… if you are unable to speak? (as seen on /.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
