On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 04:04:33PM +0300, Andrey Chernov wrote: > On 15.11.2015 16:00, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 03:56:26PM +0300, Andrey Chernov wrote: > >> On 15.11.2015 15:46, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > >>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 03:24:19PM +0300, Andrey Chernov wrote: > >>>> On 15.11.2015 10:09, John Marino wrote: > >>>> ISO8859-1 locales are legacy even if obsoleted in modern world (I agree > >>>> with that). Lots of ports (even at configure stage!) have checks for > >>>> them. Since we generate locales from CLDR now, it will be no cost to > >>>> bring all 8859-1 back to not violate POLA and not fix every failing port. > >>>> > >>> Exp-run have been made and no ports were failing with the removed locales. > >> > >> There is soft-fail, configure just marks that locales are not supported > >> and use "C". Sorry I don't remember port names where I saw it right now > >> and don't have a time to search for them right now too. Soft-fails (like > >> in tcl with nl_langinfo) are almost impossible to detect excepting > >> specific situation happens or source code inspection. Do we ever need > >> them when there is no harm to keep 8859-1 locales? > > > > Is it ok if I readd those locales as aliases on 8859-15? > > It is hacking solution leads to wrong collating order and character > classes. It is better to generate true 8859-1 just in the same way you > already do for 8859-15. > > BTW, I can't check right now, but in case 8859-5 is removed too, it is > better to restore it, it was used in Suns as their standard Russian > encoding. > I have restored the 8859-1 The 8859-5 were never removed: be_BY.ISO8859-5 ru_RU.ISO8859-5 sr_Cyrl_RS.ISO8859-5 uk_UA.ISO8859-5 Best regards, Bapt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:01 UTC