Bug 1101858
| Summary: | glibc: Add el_GR@euro, ur_IN, and wal_ET locales | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 | Reporter: | Marko Myllynen <myllynen> | |
| Component: | glibc | Assignee: | Carlos O'Donell <codonell> | |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Sergey Kolosov <skolosov> | |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | Mark Flitter <mflitter> | |
| Priority: | unspecified | |||
| Version: | 6.5 | CC: | ashankar, bgollahe, fweimer, mcermak, mflitter, mnewsome, myllynen, pfrankli, psatpute, skolosov | |
| Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | Patch | |
| Target Release: | --- | |||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | |||
| OS: | Unspecified | |||
| Whiteboard: | ||||
| Fixed In Version: | glibc-2.12-1.204 | Doc Type: | Enhancement | |
| Doc Text: |
Support for the el_GR@euro, ur_IN, and wal_ET locales has been added
The el_GR@euro, ur_IN, and wal_ET locales provide specialized support for newer currency symbols like the Euro, and complete coverage in the instances where the locale was previously unsupported.
Users can now specify these locales using the relevant environment variables to take advantage of the new localization support.
|
Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | ||||
| : | 1448107 (view as bug list) | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2017-03-21 10:34:33 UTC | Type: | Bug | |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | ||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | ||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | ||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | ||
| Embargoed: | ||||
| Bug Depends On: | ||||
| Bug Blocks: | 1361283, 1448107 | |||
|
Description
Marko Myllynen
2014-05-28 05:17:05 UTC
What does `localedef --list-archive` say on your system? localhost:~> localedef --list-archive | grep -E '(el_GR|ur_IN|wal_ET)' el_GR el_GR.iso88597 el_GR.utf8 localhost:~> localedef --list-archive | wc -l 733 localhost:~> (In reply to Marko Myllynen from comment #3) > localhost:~> localedef --list-archive | grep -E '(el_GR|ur_IN|wal_ET)' > el_GR > el_GR.iso88597 > el_GR.utf8 > localhost:~> localedef --list-archive | wc -l > 733 > localhost:~> (1) Officially supported localizations? Do we have a statement with our customers regarding the supported localizations? If yes, what languages and localizations are on that list? (2) Regression or feature request? Secondly, is this a regression from RHEL 6.4 or simply locales which are missing which you expect to be present? (3) Supported by glibc? Looking at glibc (localedata/SUPPORTED) I see that we only support: el_GR.UTF-8/UTF-8 el_GR/ISO-8859-7 Therefore we have never supported el_GR@euro, ur_IN, and wal_ET in RHEL 6.x. I'm marking this as an RFE until further information becomes available. 1) I cannot comment about the level of support (CC'ing Pravin, the author of ur_IN, who might know better). 2) Not a regression but an inconsistency I noticed while doing something unrelated. In general it seems a bit strange to single out these three locales. 3) Is el_GR@euro any different than the other @euro variants? Why omit it if the others are included? I'm pretty sure we don't have official statements about the found 733 entries and this might be merely a build issue or such. But since this is just something I happened to notice and thought to report, I'm ok leaving this as-is. Thanks. (In reply to Marko Myllynen from comment #5) > 1) I cannot comment about the level of support (CC'ing Pravin, the author of > ur_IN, who might know better). Thanks. > 2) Not a regression but an inconsistency I noticed while doing something > unrelated. In general it seems a bit strange to single out these three > locales. What are we trying to be consistent with? > 3) Is el_GR@euro any different than the other @euro variants? Why omit it if > the others are included? No reason at all except that nobody has requested it and we're following the supported set from upstream. If we get a request we'll enable the locale upstream or locally and build it. (In reply to Carlos O'Donell from comment #6) > (In reply to Marko Myllynen from comment #5) > > > 2) Not a regression but an inconsistency I noticed while doing something > > unrelated. In general it seems a bit strange to single out these three > > locales. > > What are we trying to be consistent with? Right, the inconsistency is that these locales are found under /usr/share/i18n/locales/ but not from the locale archive (unlike all other locales found there). Thanks. (In reply to Marko Myllynen from comment #7) > (In reply to Carlos O'Donell from comment #6) > > (In reply to Marko Myllynen from comment #5) > > > > > 2) Not a regression but an inconsistency I noticed while doing something > > > unrelated. In general it seems a bit strange to single out these three > > > locales. > > > > What are we trying to be consistent with? > > Right, the inconsistency is that these locales are found under > /usr/share/i18n/locales/ but not from the locale archive (unlike all other > locales found there). That's easy to answer. It's an unsupported locale that was contributed upstream and for this particular version of glibc it was never officially supported and thus not available for general use. However, we ship all the source locale definitions for use by system administrators to use localedef to compile and install it if they wish (and modify). Urdu (ur_IN) is one of the Indian 22 official Indian language. It is still not supported by RHEL. Though there has been request earlier for same. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=242886 I specifically contrbuted ur_IN in glibc to complete i18n support for 22 official Indian language in RHEL. Fixed in 2.12-1.204 Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2017-0680.html |