Bug#166979: New localedef behavior in glibc 2.3

[GOTO Masanori <gotom@debian.or.jp>]

At Tue, 25 Mar 2003 21:28:02 +0100,
Denis Barbier wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2003 at 06:53:45PM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> [...]
> > > localedef --no-archive should not be used in locale-gen.  "locale -a"
> > > searches locale-archive and /usr/lib/locale/.
> > 
> > No, /usr/bin/locale in glibc 2.3.1 does not look into locale-archive.
> >   $ ls -l /usr/lib/locale
> >   -rw-r--r--    1 root     root      3801120 Mar 25 18:52 locale-archive
> >   $ locale -a
> >   C
> >   POSIX
> >   $
> 
> I forgot to mention
>   $ localedef --list-archive
>   af_ZA
>   af_ZA.iso88591
>   ar_AE
>   ar_AE.iso88596
>   ar_BH
>   ar_BH.iso88596
>   ar_DZ
>   ar_DZ.iso88596
>   ...

Ah, this bug is fixed in 2.3.2-1.  I reproduce this problem with
2.3.1-16.  I can close this bug in 2.3.2-1.

At Tue, 25 Mar 2003 18:53:45 +0100,
Denis Barbier wrote:
> > Moreover, all programs except for libc should not use this
> > locale-archive file.
> 
> As /usr/lib/locale is managed by the locales package, could it purge
> old /usr/lib/locale/<locale>/ files?  Those files are now unneeded
> and confusing for users.  User defined locales should not be deleted
> but placed in the archive, maybe a postinst script could put
> /usr/lib/locale/<locale> in locale-archive and remove these files?

Hmm.  Glibc 2.3.2 still reads both /usr/lib/locale/<locale> and
/usr/lib/locale/locale-archive.  So it can use and it's not
"unneeded".

> > I think this bug can be closed, is it OK?
> 
> Please fix /usr/bin/locale first (I guess this is done in 2.3.2).

Yes, it's already fixed in 2.3.2.  

OK, now our discussion can move to old /usr/lib/locale/<locale> and
old entries in /usr/lib/locale/locale-archive.  I write this issue 
in another mail.

Regards,
-- gotom