This is the mail archive of the
libc-locales@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GNU libc locales project.
[Bug localedata/20664] Unexpected collation in en_US.UTF-8, different to ICU CLDR
- From: "keld at keldix dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: libc-locales at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2016 16:01:07 +0000
- Subject: [Bug localedata/20664] Unexpected collation in en_US.UTF-8, different to ICU CLDR
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-20664-716@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20664
--- Comment #4 from keld at keldix dot com <keld at keldix dot com> ---
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 11:10:56PM +0000, carlos at redhat dot com wrote:
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20664
>
> Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
> Last reconfirmed| |2016-10-03
> CC| |carlos at redhat dot com
> Ever confirmed|0 |1
>
> --- Comment #1 from Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com> ---
> Going forward we want glibc to track CLDR more closely. Therefore if you can
> find a glibc version that exhibits meaningful difference between CLDR, then
> please file a report, like this one.
>
> However, you have too many moving pieces for us to validate this, for example
> sort is not a good test case because it might itself not use glibc's collation
> tables for sorting.
>
> Can you construct a test case with strcoll that exhibits this problem?
I do not think we should aim at following CLDR closely, but we should minimize
differences. I actually think we should get CLDR to follow us more closely:-)
Bestregards
keld
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.