Fredag 9. april 2010 23.21.45 skrev Raphael Geissert :
> [should probably drop some CCs as this is becoming partially
> off-topic; adding CC to eglibc]
Other NO people may be better qualified to reply than I am, but here goes:
> Locale 'no' is not supported
> Locale 'no_NO' is not supported
> L
[should probably drop some CCs as this is becoming partially
off-topic; adding CC to eglibc]
On 9 April 2010 12:59, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Actually, if a locale doesn't exist in the glibc, translations for
> that locale won't be used, so checking against
> /usr/share/i18n/SUPPORTED seems to b
> > So, maybe lintian could check that, if foo_BAR.po file exists in a
> > package, there is at least one foo_* file in /usr/share/i18n/locales
>
> Am I missing something or wouldn't adding the 639-3 codes to the list
> of known and valid codes be enough?
Actually, if a locale doesn't exist in
On 9 April 2010 00:16, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Jumping in that thread (you would have guessed I would, right? :-))
>
:-)
> There are even some locales that correspond to *no* ISO-639-3 code
> /usr/share/i18n/locales/ber_DZ: Berber (Algeria)
> /usr/share/i18n/locales/ber_MA: Berber (Morocco)
Jumping in that thread (you would have guessed I would, right? :-))
> Mark Purcell wrote:
>
> > On Friday 09 April 2010 08:30:14 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> >> hm? eh? what? why would we remove a perfectly valid translation to a
> >> language spoken by 11 million people?
> >
> > Albert,
> >
> >
Mark Purcell wrote:
> On Friday 09 April 2010 08:30:14 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
>> hm? eh? what? why would we remove a perfectly valid translation to a
>> language spoken by 11 million people?
>
> Albert,
>
> I don't think the issue is the removal of the translations, rather the
> fact that the
Mark Purcell writes:
> I don't think the issue is the removal of the translations, rather the
> fact that the locale-code hne isn't defined in ISO 639-1 & ISO 639-2.
> My reading of Chhattisgarhi_language[1] shows that the ISO 639-3 code is
> "hne", whilst the ISO 639-2 code for this family is "
On Friday 09 April 2010 08:30:14 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> hm? eh? what? why would we remove a perfectly valid translation to a
> language spoken by 11 million people?
Albert,
I don't think the issue is the removal of the translations, rather the fact
that the locale-code hne isn't defined in I
8 matches
Mail list logo
