From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27774 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2005 08:28:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-locales-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-locales-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 27760 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Nov 2005 08:28:54 -0000 Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 08:28:00 -0000 From: Petter Reinholdtsen To: Roland McGrath Cc: Dwayne Grant McConnell , libc-locales@sources.redhat.com Bcc: Petter Reinholdtsen Subject: Re: glibc localedata bug reports Message-ID: <20051108082842.GB4835@saruman.uio.no> References: <20051107180958.30219.qmail@sourceware.org> <20051108044525.27631180A19@magilla.sf.frob.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051108044525.27631180A19@magilla.sf.frob.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-4.242, required 12, autolearn=disabled, AWL 0.76, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL -5.00) X-SW-Source: 2005-q4/txt/msg00046.txt.bz2 [Roland McGrath] > Locales folks, Dwayne is helping out with general glibc bugzilla triage, > and picking over the old reports. Great. :) > Dwayne, localedata bugs are something of a special case. The idea > is that there are fairly unambiguous objective criteria for > localedata changes. Good idea, but in my experience, it is rarely in sync with reality. In the not too uncommon and fairly lucky case, there are several standard bodies in a country with competing and different locale standards (for example norway, were the language authority and the techical standard body made two slightly different set of rules. :). In the more common and really unlucky case, there is no published standard as the country in question have no standard body working on these issues, or the standard body haven't yet addressed locale issues. > The information has to come from published official sources from the > governments of the localities in question, so competent delegates > can determine whether changes are appropriate, without further > review by the glibc maintainers. I've been unable so far to understand how to do this in a way that is acceptable by the glibc maintainers, in the absence of "published official sources from the governments of the localities in question", and ran out of steam. I hope Dwayne can take it further. :)