In order to serve our user communities better, we need to be more responsive and proactive with localisation updates.


Getting locale changes into upstream glibc is unnecessarily hard. The glibc maintainer (correctly) requires proof of the correctness of a change before it's included, but the onus of demonstrating that change falls to the glibc package maintainers. The package maintainers are frequently not qualified to provide this proof, and cannot answer upstreams questions to the needed degree of satisfaction. The glibc upstream maintainer also has a well deserved reputation for being difficult to approach with changes.

In addition, updating locales requires a complete rebuild of the glibc package. This is a very time and resource intensive build just for the sake of arch-indep files.

Use cases




Glibc package

language-packs packages


belocs-locales-data and belocs-locales-bin

These packages would no longer be needed once relevant parts are merged into lang-packs and glibc.

Data preservation and migration

Belocs-locales seems to want to be a superset of glibc locales, but it appears to be missing several locales that are in glibc proper. If anything is missing from belocs, then the missing part needs to be investigated for inclusion as well. Those missing from belocs are very probably no longer needed for various, justified reasons (countries changing name, ISO 639 code updates...).

Specifically, several locales in Breezy were marked to be removed after the "Sarge" release. These should not be carried forward.

BoF agenda and discussion

Attendees generally agreed that having locales in glibc was sub-optimal, and that not being able to get locales merged upstream was just an added difficulty.

Consensus was that moving to lang-packs now would also enable us move maint of the locale data to Rosetta at a later date (hopefully, dapper+1).

A new spec needs to be created for Rosetta, to plan for the move of locales data.


LocalesThatDontSuck (last edited 2008-08-06 16:38:19 by localhost)