[Bug localedata/17563] cmn_TW: add hanzi collation

["bluebat at member dot fsf.org" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17563

--- Comment #9 from Wei-Lun Chao <bluebat at member dot fsf.org> ---
(In reply to Mike FABIAN from comment #8)
> (In reply to Wei-Lun Chao from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Mike FABIAN from comment #6)
> > > Should the new collation also be used for zh_TW, or only
> > > for cmn_TW.
> > > By the way, what is the difference between zh_TW 
> > > and cmn_TW, isn’t both Mandarin?
> > 
> > As reasons for bug 15963, those 14 languages have been behind the
> > macro-language "zh" for a long time. Technically zh_TW and cmn_TW are the
> > same, but for fairness, IMHO, the locale zh_TW should be deprecated and
> > replaced with cmn_TW and other chinese locales.
> > 
> > Personally I would like to differentiate cmn from zh with this radical
> > patch, which may be followed by similar patches against nan_TW, hak_TW,
> > lzh_TW and yue_HK.
> 
> OK. 
> 
> How to test your patch?
> 
> I did this:
> 
> Without your patch:
> 
> $ echo -e "黄\n木\n機\n期" | LC_ALL=cmn_TW.UTF-8 sort
> 期
> 木
> 機
> 黄
> $
> 
> With your patch:
> 
> $ echo -e "黄\n木\n機\n期" | LC_ALL=cmn_TW.UTF-8 sort
> 木
> 黄
> 期
> 機
> $
> 
> That seems to show that I applied your patch correctly, right?

Yes, I used to test bug 16905 like this:
$ touch 黄 木 機 期
$ ls
$ LC_ALL=cmn_TW.UTF-8 ls

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.