In D18705#401939, @imp wrote:

This is fine, but there's a chance we'll rework the arg parsing in this program in the near future... Better to get this in now though.

@eadler any comments on this as you requested pre-commit review for top?

@kevans any thoughts here? I'm still hesitant to add the symbol, so are you ok with the change only being in libc and libregex using the old behavior (strict character comparison instead of equivalence class)?

In D18408#400188, @evfbsd_yandex.ru wrote:

Hi @yuripv, are there plans to commit this?

@imp anything else I need to change here?

Are we *guaranteed* to have the floppy drives coming only at the start of the list?

Address comments from @imp.

In D18705#399280, @bcran wrote:

-N (delete BootNext) doesn’t require -b since it doesn’t operate on a bootnum.

-N doesn't need the -b bootnum.

Drop the xlocale_private.h change, it's not really needed.

In D18611#396895, @pfg wrote:

For the record: while it is good practice to request reviews before committing, IMHO they dont make much sense, and are not required at all, for reverts. After all they stand for things all the initial reviewers missed in the first place ;).

Looks good to me, I have even applied the patch and tested some corner cases I could think of :-)

@kevans are you OK with the test case added to libc/regex instead and using sed? :)

Oops, I didn't mean to add Ed back to this review :-)

Reading through the discussion, I do agree with @ed -- we should have just one version in UTF-8, and convert to current encoding on the fly, though I do agree with @AMDmi3 as well -- making sure we use only the characters that can be converted to the related single-byte locale shouldn't be that hard, we don't need to use the fancy unicode chars in messages.

Sorry for the delay. I have spent quite a bit more time on this, including testing. Summary and the change updated accordingly.

In D18334#393097, @asomers wrote:

LGTM. Do you you need someone to commit this for you?

With the comment updated, should I go ahead and commit this? Or we should still wait for actual reviews from @scottl and @mav?

Add the comment for msi_tupelo (and cleanup whitespace issues introduced by the patch).

Now with full context...

Done in rS340491.

diff with full context

Upstream PR: https://github.com/lichray/nvi2/pull/61

In D17950#389310, @bapt wrote:

as this been upstreamed? (https://github.com/lichray/nvi2)

drop unrelated changes

After providing the quick fix, I have started wondering how GNU grep (or libgnuregex, more precisely) does the matching without providing any locale specific data; the answer is pretty simple, not sure why I didn't think about it from the start -- fold the case of *both* sides of comparison, and compare both-upper and/or both-lower.

Please submit diffs with full context.

typos.

In D18297#388056, @pfg wrote:

I am not an expert on the area but I see where the comment comes from:

RFC3629 states on page 2:

The byte-value lexicographic sorting order of UTF-8 strings is the
same as if ordered by character numbers.  Of course this is of
limited interest since a sort order based on character numbers is
almost never culturally valid.
 
The Boyer-Moore fast search algorithm can be used with UTF-8 data.

redo.

There's a reply and action upstream, the patch integrated there is more complete (removing all "bits" stuff from mansearch), will use that one.