On Hai, 14 Hai 2000, Taketoshi Sano wrote: > Hi. Hi.
> I read that new libc6-2.1.3 is not compatible to 2.1.2 > in the format of locale-database, and it may cause the problem > with locale-ja package. I don't know if locale-ko, locale-vi, > and locale-zh do have the same problem, but I think it is worth > to inform the possibility on this list. Where did you read this? I would also like to read it as the maintainer of locale-vi. > Since libc6-2.1.3 has been uploaded into potato, but the corresponding > locales-2.1.3 package does not provide the locale database for ja, ko, > and zh as others. This may be the result of considering of coexist with > the existing locale-* packages (i.e. locale-ja, locale-ko, locale-vi, and > locale-zh for potato), but glibc-2.1.3 has incompatible format for locale > database to glibc-2.1.2, so we have to provide the solution to this. I've rebuilt my LC_* files with the localedef from 2.1.3 and there were no changes in the resulting files. I've also noticed no ill effects with my installation of 2.1.3 and locale-vi, again, I think that my reading whatever you read will help me recognize any problem. > The imcompatibilities are in collation data structure and > LC_CTYPE/LC_TIME. > > The expected solution is: > > libc6-2.1.3 provides the database for all locale, and > we abolish the locale-* packages > > This requries: > locales package has Conflicts/Replaces/Provides to locale-* packages, > and provides the function of locale-* package. > > Since the working for improvement of locale handling is done at > the upstream level on glibc currently, this is preferable than > to continue to provide the separate locale-* packages. Yes, that is preferable, but if I understand correctly that is not a possibility for -ko, -ja, and -zh due to the way glibc currently implements locales, I might very well be wrong on this count though. -- Ashley Clark
