This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Fix for an_ES locale


[Ulrich Drepper]
> You should know meanwhile there is no formal definition.  What is
> done is common and useful practice.

Someones common and useful practise is hard to find and follow.  I'll
do my very best.  So there are no valid documentation to use when
writing glibc locales?  Only look at the other locales, and try to
guess the format from them?

> Why should useless info like the abbreviations be used?  This is
> available in the LC_ADDRESS section and can be derived from the
> locale name.  What some programs need are the full names and this is
> what gets filled into these fields.

Well, it is not obvious to me why it should use English names?  Some
languages do not have English names, and require the use of special
characters.  How should these be handled?  For these reasons, it might
be more sensible to use the code, and make it possible to look up the
code in some other table.  But this is not to important to me.  I just
need to know what the expected format is, so I can correct the current
locales.

You have just told me that there is no documentation, so I will have
to guess what the correct format and behavior is. :(

I'll try to document it in some texinfo file (need to learn how to
write them first), when I find out how this work.  I suspect the
simplest approach is to look at the existing locale specifications,
and documenting where glibc is different.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]