You (Christophe Le Bars) wrote:
> > Doesn't glibc use /usr/share/locale, too?
>
> Well, I don't know...
I do. That's the reason I started this thread: should it or shouldn't it?
I've deciced it should, and I'm configuring glibc to use /usr/share.
Now should we move /usr/lib/zoneinfo too? What
> Doesn't glibc use /usr/share/locale, too?
Well, I don't know...
> The only difference I'm aware of
> is /usr/share/i18n instead of /usr/share/nls. But then this already holds
> for libc5 starting with 5.4.0
The next wg15-locale package must provide a symbolic link then
(/usr/share/i18
Christophe Le Bars writes:
> wg15-locale install locale files in /usr/share/locale
> # dpkg -S /usr/share/locale
> wg15-locale: /usr/share/locale
>
> libc6 must conflict with wg15-locale (<1-2) if the locale
> directory change...
Doesn't glibc use /usr/share/locale, too? The only difference I'm a
**On 14 Aug, In article "/usr/lib/locale and /usr/share/locale",
** MVS (Miquel van Smoorenburg) writes:
MVS>A quick question (probably directed most at Ian). I notice that
MVS>/usr/lib/locale is part of the base system, but that nothing uses it.
MVS>
MVS>OTOH, some pa
Hello all,
A quick question (probably directed most at Ian). I notice that
/usr/lib/locale is part of the base system, but that nothing uses it.
OTOH, some packages do provide /usr/share/locale:
$ dpkg -S /usr/share/locale
textutils, fileutils, sharutils: /usr/share/locale
I have to decide what
5 matches
Mail list logo