This is the mail archive of the
glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
[Bug localedata/22646] redundant data (LC_TIME) for es_CL, es_CU, es_EC and es_BO
- From: "maiku.fabian at gmail dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: glibc-bugs at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2018 11:01:51 +0000
- Subject: [Bug localedata/22646] redundant data (LC_TIME) for es_CL, es_CU, es_EC and es_BO
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-22646-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22646
Mike FABIAN <maiku.fabian at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |maiku.fabian at gmail dot com
--- Comment #5 from Mike FABIAN <maiku.fabian at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Akhilesh Kumar from comment #4)
> > ... therefore copy "es_ES" everywhere (where applicable, of course) including es_BO.
>
> I also think copying LC_TIME from es_ES may not good, Because week set for
> es_CL, es_CU, es_EC and es_BO is same but different for es_ES.
>
>
> week 7;19971130;4 >> es_ES
> week 7;19971130;1 >> es_CL
> week 7;19971130;1 >> es_CU
> week 7;19971130;1 >> es_EC
> week 7;19971130;1 >> es_BO
At the moment, es_CL, es_CU, es_EC, and es_BO have identical LC_TIME,
so it is OK to copy from one of them.
It would be interesting to check why MINWEEKLEN is 4 in es_ES
and 1 in es_CL, es_CU, es_EC, and es_BO. Is this correct or is
it a mistake.
At the moment it is OK to use the suggested copy, I think,
it shows more clearly that LC_TIME is identical in these 4 locales
at the moment.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.