[debian-devel:11607] Re: locale-*

[Ashley Clark <aclark@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Hai, 14 Hai   2000, Taketoshi Sano wrote:
> Hi.

Hi.

> I read that new libc6-2.1.3 is not compatible to 2.1.2
> in the format of locale-database, and it may cause the problem
> with locale-ja package. I don't know if locale-ko, locale-vi,
> and locale-zh do have the same problem, but I think it is worth 
> to inform the possibility on this list.

Where did you read this? I would also like to read it as the
maintainer of locale-vi.

> Since libc6-2.1.3 has been uploaded into potato, but the corresponding
> locales-2.1.3 package does not provide the locale database for ja, ko,
> and zh as others. This may be the result of considering of coexist with
> the existing locale-* packages (i.e. locale-ja, locale-ko, locale-vi, and
> locale-zh for potato), but glibc-2.1.3 has incompatible format for locale
> database to glibc-2.1.2, so we have to provide the solution to this.

I've rebuilt my LC_* files with the localedef from 2.1.3 and there
were no changes in the resulting files. I've also noticed no ill
effects with my installation of 2.1.3 and locale-vi, again, I think
that my reading whatever you read will help me recognize any problem.

> The imcompatibilities are in collation data structure and
> LC_CTYPE/LC_TIME.
> 
> The expected solution is:
> 
>  libc6-2.1.3 provides the database for all locale, and
>    we abolish the locale-* packages
> 
>     This requries:
>        locales package has Conflicts/Replaces/Provides to locale-* packages,
>        and provides the function of locale-* package.
> 
> Since the working for improvement of locale handling is done at
> the upstream level on glibc currently, this is preferable than
> to continue to provide the separate locale-* packages.

Yes, that is preferable, but if I understand correctly that is not a
possibility for -ko, -ja, and -zh due to the way glibc currently
implements locales, I might very well be wrong on this count though.

-- 
Ashley Clark