This is the mail archive of the libc-locales@sourceware.org mailing list for the GNU libc locales project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug localedata/22646] redundant data (LC_TIME) for es_CL, es_CU, es_EC and es_BO


https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22646

Mike FABIAN <maiku.fabian at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |maiku.fabian at gmail dot com

--- Comment #5 from Mike FABIAN <maiku.fabian at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Akhilesh Kumar from comment #4)
> > ... therefore copy "es_ES" everywhere (where applicable, of course) including es_BO.
> 
> I also think copying LC_TIME from es_ES may not good, Because week set for 
> es_CL, es_CU,  es_EC  and es_BO is same but different for es_ES.
> 
> 
> week 7;19971130;4  >> es_ES 
> week 7;19971130;1  >> es_CL
> week 7;19971130;1  >> es_CU
> week 7;19971130;1  >> es_EC
> week 7;19971130;1  >> es_BO

At the moment, es_CL, es_CU, es_EC, and es_BO have identical LC_TIME,
so it is OK to copy from one of them.

It would be interesting to check why MINWEEKLEN  is 4 in es_ES
and 1 in es_CL, es_CU, es_EC, and es_BO. Is this correct or is
it a mistake.

At the moment it is OK to use the suggested copy, I think, 
it shows more clearly that LC_TIME is identical in these 4 locales
at the moment.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]