On 19.11.22 13:12, Марина Полякова wrote:
>> I'm not in favor of changing this. The existing code intentionally
>> tries to centralize the "ICU is not supported in this build" knowledge
>> in few places. Your patch tries to make this check early, but in the
>> process adds more places where ICU support needs to be checked
>> explicitly. This increases the code size and also creates a future
>> burden to maintain that level of checking. I think building without ICU
>> should be considered a marginal configuration at this point, so we don't
>> need to go out of our way to create a perfect user experience for this
>> configuration, as long as we check somewhere in the end.
> Maybe this should be written in the documentation [1] or --with-icu
> should be used by default? As a developer I usually check something
> with the simplest configure run to make sure other options do not
> affect the checked behaviour. And some other developers in our company
> also use simple configure runs, without --with-icu etc.
Well, this isn't a hard rule, just my opinion and where I see the world
moving. It's similar to --with-openssl and --with-lz4 etc.
