On 2006-05-05 19:11, Farhan Ahmed uttered these thoughts:
> Well userlocales USE flag was there in glibc-2.4-r1 but it's absent in
> glibc-2.4-r2.. But here's the weird thing, I had compiled glibc-2.4-r1
> with userlocales USE flag, in my /etc/locales.build I just have
>
> en_US/ISO-8859-1
> e
Farhan Ahmed wrote:
> But here's the weird thing, I had compiled glibc-2.4-r1
> with userlocales USE flag, in my /etc/locales.build
There *is* no file called /etc/locales.build. glibc-2.4-r2
uses /etc/locale.gen to determine, which locales are to be
generated.
> But with 2.4-r2 there is no such
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> Alexander Skwar wrote:
>>> Sven Köhler wrote:
My glibc 2.3.6 (with userlocales turned off) never
creates such locales.
>>>
>>> There's no such flag as "userlocales".
>>>
>
> Sorry, I cannot help with the issue but I do know there is a userlocales
> flag,
No, ther
Farhan Ahmed wrote:
> Anyway have you changed your locale
> settings from .UTF-8 to .utf8
Yep. But most importantly, I setup the /etc/locale.gen file.
> (all environment variables etc.,)? Is your
> system working fine now?
Yes, it is.
Alexander Skwar
--
QOTD:
"If I'm what I eat, I'm
Jeremy Olexa wrote:
> Alexander Skwar wrote:
> > Sven Köhler wrote:
> >> My glibc 2.3.6 (with userlocales turned off) never
> >> creates such locales.
> >
> > There's no such flag as "userlocales".
> >
>
> Sorry, I cannot help with the issue but I do know there is a userlocales
> flag, I use thi
Alexander Skwar wrote:
> >> > What might have been the last glibc-version with UTF-8 locales?
> >>
> >> 2.3.6-r3 or 2.4-r1
> >
> > No. Glibc-2.4-r1 used .utf8 locales.
>
> That might be. Then I wonder, why I had no problems with .UTF-8
> when I was using 2.4-r1. As I wrote, it might be, that my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alexander Skwar wrote:
> Sven Köhler wrote:
>> My glibc 2.3.6 (with userlocales turned off) never
>> creates such locales.
>
> There's no such flag as "userlocales".
>
Sorry, I cannot help with the issue but I do know there is a userlocales
flag, I
Farhan Ahmed wrote:
> Alexander Skwar wrote:
>> Sven Köhler wrote:
>> (snip)
>>
>> > What might have been the last glibc-version with UTF-8 locales?
>>
>> 2.3.6-r3 or 2.4-r1
>
> No. Glibc-2.4-r1 used .utf8 locales.
That might be. Then I wonder, why I had no problems with .UTF-8
when I was using
Alexander Skwar wrote:
> Sven Köhler wrote:
> (snip)
>
> > What might have been the last glibc-version with UTF-8 locales?
>
> 2.3.6-r3 or 2.4-r1
No. Glibc-2.4-r1 used .utf8 locales.. Just as an example of .utf8 usage
even before glibc-2.4 read this Gentoo Weekly NewsLetter:
http://www.gentoo
Farhan Ahmed wrote:
> Sven Köhler wrote:
>> (snip)
>>
>> I also looked it up on a Redhat-System: no .UTF-8 locales.
>>
>>
>> What might have been the last glibc-version with UTF-8 locales?
>> (i don't remember to have seen that over the last few years)
>
> I think some .UTF-8 locales were used
Sven Köhler wrote:
>> Yesterday I updated from glibc-2.4-r1 to glibc-2.4-r2. Since then,
>> I've got problems with my UTF-8 locale. I suppose, that is because
>> the UTF-8 denomination seems to have changed from .UTF-8 to .utf8:
>
> .UTF-8 changed from .utf8?
Yep.
> That's not true.
Wrong, it i
Sven Köhler wrote:
> (snip)
>
> I also looked it up on a Redhat-System: no .UTF-8 locales.
>
>
> What might have been the last glibc-version with UTF-8 locales?
> (i don't remember to have seen that over the last few years)
I think some .UTF-8 locales were used uptil recently.. I read the "Usin
> Yesterday I updated from glibc-2.4-r1 to glibc-2.4-r2. Since then,
> I've got problems with my UTF-8 locale. I suppose, that is because
> the UTF-8 denomination seems to have changed from .UTF-8 to .utf8:
.UTF-8 changed from .utf8?
That's not true. My glibc 2.3.6 (with userlocales turned off) n
13 matches
Mail list logo
