Re: Bug#261000: console-tools: de_DE.UTF-8@euro does not get caught as UTF-8
At Sat, 24 Jul 2004 22:46:21 +0200,
Denis Barbier wrote:
> [Please respect the Mail-Followup-To debian-glibc and Kilian Krause]
>
> Debian-glibc folks,
>
> XFree86 had to be patched to accept .UTF-8@euro locales, other
> applications like console-tools seem to have trouble too with these
> locales. Of course those applications should be fixed, relying on
> locale names is deeply broken, but .UTF-8@euro and .UTF-8 locales are
> identical, so why are .UTF-8@euro needed at all?
> It seems that many European people are confused and believe that if
> both locales exist, .UTF-8@euro does provide some extra fonctionnality
> over .UTF-8.
> In order to prevent useless duplicates, I believe that .UTF-8@euro
> locales should be removed from the locales.config maintainer script
> (but not from /usr/share/i18n/SUPPORTED).
Correct, I agree with your observation. For example, ca_ES has three
entries (ca_ES is appeared firstly in locales):
ca_ES ISO-8859-1
ca_ES.UTF-8 UTF-8
ca_ES.UTF-8@euro UTF-8
ca_ES@euro ISO-8859-15
But ca_ES@euro is the same as ca_ES.
In addition, I think it's good idea to remove @euro from SUPPORTED
after sarge. The upstream cvs still has those locales, but it should
be removed in the future propor period.
> In this bugreport, there had also been discussions regarding
> /etc/environment. This file is undocumented (or its documentation is not
> visible), maybe a comment should be added by the locales package when
> this file is created? This comment should explain that this file is
> not sourced by script shells, and should only consist of comments and
> lines in the form variable=value.
I agreed, too. I want to clear the meaning of this file. pam_env
uses this file, but I don't know this is really good way to define
LANG environment variable. Moreover, it's good idea to describe: how
to handle the basic environment variable (for example LANG) in debian.
Denis, could you work this kind of issue if you have spare time?
Regards,
-- gotom
Reply to: