[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: esperanto locale kaj glibc



Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS wrote:

Jes, bonvolu fari. Tamen, estu ne nur

eo_EO ISO-8859-3

sed ankaŭ:

eo_EO.UTF-8 UTF-8

Aŭ kun XX; vidu sube.


But the current esperanto patch is only for eo_EO. Is it for UTF8 or works both for UTF8 and latin3 if locales properly generated?

If the patch is not changed, I do not know if worths adding the XX entries here, or what really worths is modifying and renaming the eo_EO patch to use eo_XX instead.

I am holding the wishlist against glibc until we have clear what to do



Mi suspektas, ke la glibc-uloj faros nenion baldaŭ, do indas rigardi,
kion faras la xfree86-uloj.


Seems that xfree86 uses both, but only as latin3. I have not clear if the original is eo_XX and that eo_EO was added only to the Debian package
(http://lists.debian.org/debian-x/2000/debian-x-200009/msg00288.html)
or that was also added upstream. Looking at the sources now, it already provides both, but plain eo points to eo_XX.ISO8859-3

I am also looking at other distros. Looking at mandrake, seems that uses eo_XX, and also seems that they put this stuff in all forms in their locales-eo-2.3.2-1mdk.i586 file

...
/usr/share/locale/eo/LC_TIME
...
/usr/share/locale/eo_XX.ISO-8859-3/LC_TIME
...
/usr/share/locale/eo_XX.UTF-8/LC_TIME
...
/usr/share/locale/eo_XX/LC_TIME

Seems that redhat also uses eo_XX (http://www.bertilow.com/komputo/linukso.php)

By the way, I found other esperanto locale definition at

http://www.geocities.com/tuxloveslinux/eo/esperantigi/eo_XX.txt


My knowledge about glibc is small, but I guess adding esperanto to the
locales alias file in any of both forms, and another alias as the other
might suffice. Something like

esperanto eo_EO.ISO-8859-3
eo_XX     eo_EO.ISO-8859-3


Tion mi ne celis. Mi celis akcepti kaj "eo_EO" kaj "eo_XX" kiel
ekvivalentojn. Tio estus utila dum la nuna konfuzo pri tio.


I agree, but I do not have clear what is the best way to do that

Salutoj,

--
Agustin



Reply to: