This is the mail archive of the libc-locales@sourceware.org mailing list for the GNU libc locales 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]

[Bug localedata/1015] be_BY@tarask: new locale


https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1015

--- Comment #30 from Mike FABIAN <maiku.fabian at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Hleb Valoshka from comment #27)
> I absolutely disagree with such bug treatment. Although Ihar does not use it
> this does not mean that nobody else uses it.

If there are people who really want to use it today, we will add it.

> Of course it no easy to properly work with @tarask locale variant (incorrect
> spelling of some strings etc) because the bug was opened 12 (TWELVE!) years
> ago without any actions from glibc maintainers.

We are trying to improve, Rafał and me are currently going through the list
of open bugs related to locales and try to work through that backlog.

> This is a trivial case, this is not posting glibc to brand new kernel. It's
> just a locale definitions, it's attached, what prevents glibc maintainers to
> simply copy it into source tree?

Adding locales is not without cost, each locale needs about 2 MB in
the binary. Some distributions still install all available locales
always by default (for example openSUSE and Fedora do
this). Therefore, having more locales will make the default install
larger.  That is OK for locales which are used by some people, but
adding stuff which nobody uses makes no sense.

And it is sometimes hard for us to figure out whether there are
really any users or not, especially for old bug reports where there
was no activity for a few years.

As Chris Leonard writes, if a locales exists in CLDR, this is also
an indication that it is really used by somebody.

Recently I added a ca_ES.utf8@valencia locale, there I also had
some doubts first whether there are people really interested in using this.
But when I saw that ca_ES_VALENCIA.xml exists in CLDR, I thought:
“OK, this proves that there is real user interest in that locale”.

> Is this how communication with community should be handled?

We want to be nice to the community, but it is sometimes hard for
us to find out which language communities are really active
and which are not.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

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