From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16475 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2017 19:04:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-locales-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-locales-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 16413 invoked by uid 48); 9 Aug 2017 19:04:42 -0000 From: "bluebat at member dot fsf.org" To: libc-locales@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug localedata/17563] cmn_TW: add hanzi collation Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 03:06:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc X-Bugzilla-Component: localedata X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: bluebat at member dot fsf.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: maiku.fabian at gmail dot com X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: security- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2017-q3/txt/msg00421.txt.bz2 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D17563 --- Comment #9 from Wei-Lun Chao --- (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=20 > > > and cmn_TW, isn=E2=80=99t both Mandarin? > >=20 > > 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 t= he > > same, but for fairness, IMHO, the locale zh_TW should be deprecated and > > replaced with cmn_TW and other chinese locales. > >=20 > > 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. >=20 > OK.=20 >=20 > How to test your patch? >=20 > I did this: >=20 > Without your patch: >=20 > $ echo -e "=E9=BB=84\n=E6=9C=A8\n=E6=A9=9F\n=E6=9C=9F" | LC_ALL=3Dcmn_TW.= UTF-8 sort > =E6=9C=9F > =E6=9C=A8 > =E6=A9=9F > =E9=BB=84 > $ >=20 > With your patch: >=20 > $ echo -e "=E9=BB=84\n=E6=9C=A8\n=E6=A9=9F\n=E6=9C=9F" | LC_ALL=3Dcmn_TW.= UTF-8 sort > =E6=9C=A8 > =E9=BB=84 > =E6=9C=9F > =E6=A9=9F > $ >=20 > That seems to show that I applied your patch correctly, right? Yes, I used to test bug 16905 like this: $ touch =E9=BB=84 =E6=9C=A8 =E6=A9=9F =E6=9C=9F $ ls $ LC_ALL=3Dcmn_TW.UTF-8 ls --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.