This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH][BZ 15593] Add transliteration data for "LATIN SMALL LETTER O WITH STROKE" (ø)
- From: Marko Myllynen <myllynen at redhat dot com>
- To: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:08:06 +0300
- Subject: Re: [PATCH][BZ 15593] Add transliteration data for "LATIN SMALL LETTER O WITH STROKE" (ø)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <87r4bkdsyn dot fsf at toke dot dk> <525FDF58 dot 1040002 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1310171449590 dot 24034 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
- Reply-to: myllynen at redhat dot com
On 2013-10-17 17:53, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2013, Marko Myllynen wrote:
>> Also, I wonder how do we cope with these kind of local additions when
>> resolving bug 14094?
> I don't think either 14094 (character map, LC_CTYPE) or 14095 (collation)
> has anything to do with transliteration, and I wasn't aware of our
> transliteration data coming from any upstream source for which there would
> be merge issues for local changes.
> Of course for both those bugs we do need to understand exactly how the
> present files in glibc relate to an old version of the upstream data, in
> order to make a correct merge, but I hope that in most cases, especially
> for 14094, if we use the latest upstream data correctly we will be able to
> satisfy ourselves that, if local changes made different choices from
> upstream, there's no real advantage to the local version over the upstream
for example localedata/locales/translit_combining states "Generated from
UnicodeData.txt" so I was thinking if we regenerate the file again in
the future from newer upstream data then we might lost these kind of
local additions. Both Æ and Ø are in the same block so I'm also unclear
why the other was present and the other was missing in the first place.
Or am I perhaps missing something here?