From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7031 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2002 04:14:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-hacker-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-hacker-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 7001 invoked from network); 22 Nov 2002 04:14:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gateway.sf.frob.com) (64.163.212.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Nov 2002 04:14:34 -0000 Received: from magilla.sf.frob.com (magilla.sf.frob.com [198.49.250.228]) by gateway.sf.frob.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 153CE36DB; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:14:34 -0800 (PST) Received: (from roland@localhost) by magilla.sf.frob.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gAM4EXF27499; Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:14:33 -0800 Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 20:14:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200211220414.gAM4EXF27499@magilla.sf.frob.com> From: Roland McGrath To: GNU libc hackers Subject: locale.alias Emacs: because one operating system isn't enough. X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00066.txt.bz2 Is there some policy or guiding principle behind what goes into locale.alias? I have no interest in being the arbiter of what the canonical aliases for various locales should be. But I don't know how to respond to bug reports or change requests about the locale.alias contents we ship in the libc sources. I guess the answer I'd like best is that for each locale there is some responsible entity that decides what's right (or one entity for all, whatever), and that entity decides the canonical alias names too. I have no problem deciding what's right for en_US, these 300 million other losers notwithstanding ;-). But for the general case I want an easily-identifiable recipient to pass the buck to. Thanks, Roland