Am 14.06.2017 um 06:50 schrieb Christian PERRIER:
However, I think that diverting the idea behind "common names" to implement so-called "commonly used" names, goes too far. If these countries want to be named this way, their national standard body can change that by following standard ISO-3166 procedures (in such cases that implies changing the "short name" in the UNO). We, as package maintainers, should not interfere with that.However, I leave such decision to Tobias, the current package maintainer.
Hi all,thank you, Christian, for your long and detailed answer. To be honest, I haven't made up my mind yet, thus my silence so far.
I tend to agree with Christian, we should not derive from the standard. On the other hand, we've (or I have) made some other exceptions, too. There is "common_name" data for Bolivia, Moldova, Tanzania, Venezuela, and Vietnam as well.
Maybe we should remove those common names again, to keep as close to the standard as possible. Then again, the common name is used e.g. for selecting a country from a list (debian-installer comes to mind). I think most users are comfortable with those common names and would regard the official short name as rather, well, official. :-)
As I've said, I need to think about this. Maybe some more input from other people would be good.
Regards, Tobias
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
