Re: [PATCH] [BZ 14510] Fix LC_NUMERIC for various es_* locales

["Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at systemhalted dot org>]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:43 AM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
>> The truth is that I'm skeptical of glibc's current policy about
>> requiring normative references for changing the locale data. How does
>> that better serve our users? I'm of the mind that we should be doing
>> bulk imports from CLDR and directing users to interact with the
>> Unicode community upstream. At the end of the day when you click on
>> the "I live here" button or setup the "I'm from here" config option
>> you should get formatting that is familiar to you and makes your
>> interaction with the system easier, and that might not be what your
>> government mandates.
>
> Perhaps.  But I can also see the case where this might conflict based on
> personal experience/preferences.  Plus glibc is used by government entities
> and they're a lot more likely to demand the locale data match the government
> mandates.

How does that matter? We can create as many locales as we wish, some
with strict settings, others with settings selected from community
voted values; letting the user select at install time which locales
they wish to use.

The notion that we must have one and only one es_MX seems like an
auto-proposition. If we need to have only one es_MX because of
standards constraints then we can provide some GNU knob that says how
conforming you want the locale to behave and have the implementation
select a different file based on that.

Does that make sense?

Cheers,
Carlos.