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

Bug#251000: acknowledged by developer (Re: Bug#251000: xlibs-data: keeping /usr/share/i18n/SUPPORTED and /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/locale/locale.alias in sync.)

On Fri, May 28, 2004 at 03:03:13AM -0700, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > In short, (after making sure /etc/locale.gen included both
> > en_US.ISO-8859-15 and it_IT@euro) I tried in bash the following commands,
> > and I cannot understand the results:
> >
> > $ unset LANG
> >
> > $ LC_CTYPE=it_IT@euro xterm
> >
> > $ LC_CTYPE=en_US.ISO-8859-15 xterm
> > Warning: locale not supported by Xlib, locale set to C
> >
> > Why does the first locale works while the second does not?
> Because en_US.ISO-8859-15 is not a supported locale.

I think this is not quite true.

> it_IT@euro is; stick with it.

You could have said "en_US.ISO8859-15 is; stick with it", and it would
have been equally true.

According to /usr/share/i18n/SUPPORTED (as of glibc 2.3.2ds1-12),
en_US.ISO-8859-15 is supported too.  That is: you can set to
"en_US.ISO-8859-15" whatever you choose among LC_CTYPE, LC_PAPER, LC_*,
LC_ALL or LANG and libc supports your choice.

> Closing this report.  Andreas gave you excellent advice, and you're not
> really reporting an xlibs-data problem.

Andreas gave me an excellent advice, but that's not the point.  Believe
me, I'm not looking for help configuring my locale. (BTW, it would be
very nice from your part to restore the original subject of this bug)

The point is:  why xlibs-data and glibc use the same env
vars but interpret them differently? That is: why must I set
LANG="en_US.ISO-8859-15" for libc and LANG="en_US.ISO8859-15" for
xlibs-data? (Notice the subtle difference, and the impossibility)

> -- 
> G. Branden Robinson                |       Yesterday upon the stair,
> Debian GNU/Linux                   |       I met a man who wasn't there.
> branden@debian.org                 |       He wasn't there again today,
> http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |       I think he's from the CIA.

Reply to: