Yesterday I updated from glibc-2.4-r1 to glibc-2.4-r2. Since then,
I've got problems with my UTF-8 locale. I suppose, that is because
the UTF-8 denomination seems to have changed from .UTF-8 to .utf8:
.UTF-8 changed from .utf8?
That's not true. My glibc 2.3.6 (with userlocales turned off)
Sven Köhler wrote:
(snip)
I also looked it up on a Redhat-System: no .UTF-8 locales.
What might have been the last glibc-version with UTF-8 locales?
(i don't remember to have seen that over the last few years)
I think some .UTF-8 locales were used uptil recently.. I read the Using
UTF-8
Sven Köhler wrote:
Yesterday I updated from glibc-2.4-r1 to glibc-2.4-r2. Since then,
I've got problems with my UTF-8 locale. I suppose, that is because
the UTF-8 denomination seems to have changed from .UTF-8 to .utf8:
.UTF-8 changed from .utf8?
Yep.
That's not true.
Wrong, it is.
My
Farhan Ahmed wrote:
Sven Köhler wrote:
(snip)
I also looked it up on a Redhat-System: no .UTF-8 locales.
What might have been the last glibc-version with UTF-8 locales?
(i don't remember to have seen that over the last few years)
I think some .UTF-8 locales were used uptil recently.
Alexander Skwar wrote:
Sven Köhler wrote:
(snip)
What might have been the last glibc-version with UTF-8 locales?
2.3.6-r3 or 2.4-r1
No. Glibc-2.4-r1 used .utf8 locales.. Just as an example of .utf8 usage
even before glibc-2.4 read this Gentoo Weekly NewsLetter:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alexander Skwar wrote:
Sven Köhler wrote:
My glibc 2.3.6 (with userlocales turned off) never
creates such locales.
There's no such flag as userlocales.
Sorry, I cannot help with the issue but I do know there is a userlocales
flag, I use this
Alexander Skwar wrote:
What might have been the last glibc-version with UTF-8 locales?
2.3.6-r3 or 2.4-r1
No. Glibc-2.4-r1 used .utf8 locales.
That might be. Then I wonder, why I had no problems with .UTF-8
when I was using 2.4-r1. As I wrote, it might be, that my system
was
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
Alexander Skwar wrote:
Sven Köhler wrote:
My glibc 2.3.6 (with userlocales turned off) never
creates such locales.
There's no such flag as userlocales.
Sorry, I cannot help with the issue but I do know there is a userlocales
flag, I use this flag to only add
Farhan Ahmed wrote:
Anyway have you changed your locale
settings from .UTF-8 to .utf8
Yep. But most importantly, I setup the /etc/locale.gen file.
(all environment variables etc.,)? Is your
system working fine now?
Yes, it is.
Alexander Skwar
--
QOTD:
If I'm what I eat, I'm a
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
Alexander Skwar wrote:
Sven Köhler wrote:
My glibc 2.3.6 (with userlocales turned off) never
creates such locales.
There's no such flag as userlocales.
Sorry, I cannot help with the issue but I do know there is a userlocales
flag,
No, there *IS* not. There *used
Farhan Ahmed wrote:
But here's the weird thing, I had compiled glibc-2.4-r1
with userlocales USE flag, in my /etc/locales.build
There *is* no file called /etc/locales.build. glibc-2.4-r2
uses /etc/locale.gen to determine, which locales are to be
generated.
But with 2.4-r2 there is no such
On 2006-05-05 19:11, Farhan Ahmed uttered these thoughts:
Well userlocales USE flag was there in glibc-2.4-r1 but it's absent in
glibc-2.4-r2.. But here's the weird thing, I had compiled glibc-2.4-r1
with userlocales USE flag, in my /etc/locales.build I just have
en_US/ISO-8859-1
12 matches
Mail list logo
