Re: CLDR locales support in glibc

[Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>]

On 05 May 2016 02:52, Rostislav Devyatov wrote:
> If I understand correctly, "locales" are first "defined" or "created"
> by Unicode developers and distributed in a package (?) called CLDR.
> Then the support for a given new locale in linux starts when it
> becomes supported by glibc.

so far, the glibc locales have been completely independent of CLDR.  we
have recently started a process to try and align the two bodies so we
aren't duplicating effort.

in order to get a new locale into glibc, we haven't been requiring people
get it created in CLDR first.  maybe someday we'll be there, but i think
it's too far off to think about.

> It also seems to me that for now, CLDR containes more locales than
> glibc supports. In other words, here
> http://unicode.org/Public/cldr/29/ in core.zip , in the common/main/
> directory of the archive, there are more files than here
> http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/glibc/ in glibc-2.23.tar.gz , in the
> localedata/locales/ directory of the archive. And my question is,
> whether support for (some of) the remaining CLDR locales by glibc can
> be expected?

there are many locales that exist in both, and there are many that exist
only in glibc, and there are many that exist only in CLDR.  generally
speaking, we probably want to head in the direction of convergence which
means both sides need to improve.

for our side, we'll need to write a tool to generate new locales in the
format glibc uses by importing the data from CLDR.  that tool hasn't yet
been written though :).  the focus so far has been pulling in updates
from CLDR for existing locales/languages/territories.

> I'm particularly interested in the locale called en_150, which is
> announced here http://cldr.unicode.org/index/downloads/cldr-22 , in
> September 2012. If I understand correctly, this locale indicates that
> the language is English and the date/paper/temperature standards are
> the ones used in continental Europe.

ah, but here is where things get fun :).  this isn't really the same
vein as all the other locales we've been carrying thus far.  i think
this falls into the general bucket of "how can i mix langs & territories
in ways glibc doesn't have hardcoded".  this looks like the thread:
	https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-04/msg00551.html
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature