[PATCH v12] Locales: Cyrillic -> ASCII transliteration [BZ #2872] ping for 2.30

[Egor Kobylkin]

ping

On 14.02.19 17:48, Marko Myllynen wrote:
> Hi Carlos, Mike, Rafal,
> 
> It seems clear that you all are currently too busy to have a look at
> this but would you have any estimate when you might be able to review
> this so that we could consider merging?
> 
> FWIW, I chatted with Egor off-list and we're on the same page wrt the
> following, hopefully this gives you a bit off jump start for this
> subject when you have time to dig deeper:
> 
> 1) Built-in C locale doesn't read/use any translit_* files and it can't
> have any fallback mechanisms and it only supports ASCII so using GOST
> 7.79 System B in locale/C-translit.h.in (as per patch v12) would seem to
> be the appropriate way to implement Cyrillic transliteration for the
> built-in C locale (it adds some 8KB to the binary).
> 
> 2) Other locales read/use translit_* files and with them fallbacks and
> non-ASCII are possible so it would seem preferable to first try ISO 9 /
> GOST 7.79 System A and only if that fails then use GOST 7.79 System B
> (in which case the end result should match with the built-in C locale).
> For this the translit_cyrillic file should be added (as per patch v9 +
> changes mentioned in patches v10 and v12).
> 
> 3) Individual locale files can then be updated to use translit_cyrillic
> as appropriate (see patch v9) and language/national specific conventions
> (e.g., SFS 4900 for fi_FI) can be applied on per-locale basis.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> On 04/02/2019 09.14, Egor Kobylkin wrote:
>> Carlos,
>> are you comfortable to pick this up again this month?
>>
>> I would really love to have a reliable action plan to get this committed
>> for 2.30. Maybe cut out a subset that is undisputed and commit only that
>> first. It looks kinda like an eternal moving target otherwise.
>>
>> for you reference:
>> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-01/msg00036.html
>> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2019-01/msg00040.html
>>
>> Bests,
>> Egor Kobylkin
>>
>> On 09.01.19 21:03, Marko Myllynen wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 09/01/2019 02.46, Egor Kobylkin wrote:
>>>> On 07.01.19 21:37, Marko Myllynen wrote:
>>>>> On 05/01/2019 23.12, Egor Kobylkin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good catch! Should we maybe split this into two patches, one for C and
>>>>>> the other for "country" locales? They have different codes and
>>>>>> functionality so it looks like it would be easier to keep focus.
>>>>>
>>>>> That would probably make sense, the standard C/POSIX locale won't
>>>>> support System A so it also narrows down solution alternatives with it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Country" locales in localedata/locales/ can then have the exact same
>>>>>> translit table included or they can have any other flavor - I don't
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> a problem here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, and since those files are not limited to ASCII, perhaps we
>>>>> could
>>>>> now reconsider the v9 approach for them, i.e., prefer System A if
>>>>> possible, otherwise use System B / ASCII (just need to make sure that
>>>>> the ASCII fall-back for them will match the built-in C ASCII rule)?
>>>>
>>>> Happy to hear the split seems to be a clear cut one.
>>>> How about I rename the "[PATCH v12]...[BZ #2872]" to "[PATCH v1]...
>>>> C/POSIX [BZ #2872]" and the "[PATCH v9]" gets its own bug-report
>>>> (number) and title for clarity in communication?
>>>
>>> I'm not sure is a new BZ really needed for such an addition, perhaps a
>>> NEWS entry might be more appropriate (with the full details explained in
>>> the commit messages of course) but I'll leave this to others to decide.
>>>
>>>> This way it would probably be easier to have the decision making process
>>>> tied up for both patches (separately). We may want to get the v12 POSIX
>>>> out of the door in 2.30 then and can take all the time we need to set up
>>>> the rules for "Countries" locales as you need them to be.
>>>
>>> Perhaps Rafal or Carlos have better suggestions but I would think we
>>> could have a patch series where the patch 1/3 adds the C/POSIX locale
>>> part (that would be what you posted as v12), then patch 2/3 adds
>>> translit_cyrillic (based on your v9 so supports ISO 9.1995 / GOST 7.79
>>> System A and GOST 7.79 System B as a fall-back (which would match the
>>> C/POSIX rules)), and finally the patch 3/3 updates locales to use
>>> translit_cyrillic as appropriate. But as said, Rafal or Carlos may have
>>> alternative suggestions so it might be best to wait for their feedback
>>> before doing anything yet (it's unfortunate you've had to do so many
>>> iterations around this already but I think we've all learned something
>>> during the process and the end result will be more correct than any of
>>> the earlier versions).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
> 
>