This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [RFC][BZ#13985] missing language in iso-639.def
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Chris Leonard <cjlhomeaddress at gmail dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 17:23:49 -0400
- Subject: Re: [RFC][BZ#13985] missing language in iso-639.def
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAHdAatZ12BL2dHrvRG-9Te_ktbiUgV=pYSa=c=dUHowpJfv0og at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 09/13/2013 07:18 AM, Chris Leonard wrote:
> Resolution of the issue in [BZ#13985]
> "cgg Chiga (Rukiga, Ruchiga, or Kiga maybe) missing"
>
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13985
>
> would seem to require addition of a single line to locale/iso-639.def
>
> Given that Chiga only has an ISO-639-3 code (and not an ISO-639-2 code)
You mean to say Chiga was only added when ISO-639-3 was published?
> Which of the following lines is the correct addition to make?
>
>
> DEFINE_LANGUAGE_CODE2 ("Chiga", cgg) /* ISO 639-3 */
>
>
> or is it
>
>
> DEFINE_LANGUAGE_CODE3 ("Chiga", cgg, cgg)
>
>
> The first construction is only used once in iso-639.def, whereas the
> second construction seems more common in that file in similar cases.
What does DEFINE_LANGAUGE_CODE vs. *2 and *3 mean?
Do they mean "Use this macro when the language was added in -2 or
-3 of the stadnard?"
If that's the case then clearly DEFINE_LANGUAGE_CODE3 is the most
appropriate having been added in ISO 639-3.
Yet the header says "For some languages which have no 639-2 code
the 639-3 code is used." which means there should be no different
macro there.
No clue then...
Cheers,
Carlos.