[bug-diffutils] Re: [patch] i18n patch for diffutils

[Matthew Burgess]

On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:02:15 +0100, Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:

> However, in this case, the patch ends up duplicating
> a lot of important logic, and I'm holding out hope
> that we'll end up with multibyte support that avoids
> that maintenance pitfall while still retaining most of
> the single-byte performance.

I notice that Padraig Brady mentioned libunistring when a similar
issue was noted in Coreutils (pinky) -
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2010-01/msg00234.html.

Do GNU projects have a consistent stance on the use of that relatively
new library as a dependency?  I'm wondering if diffutils were
interested in utilising it, would it be OK for a patch that did so to
have it as a hard dependency, to save having to have multiple branches
in the code to handle its presence/absence?
 
> If you do find a test case that demonstrates how that patch
> can help (or any test case), I'd be happy to add that, independent
> of adding the code to fix it.

I'll see what I can do!

Regards,

Matt.