> In Ubuntu we don't use the locales from the upstream glibc tree on the grounds that they're quite frequently wrong and (justifiably) hard to get updated. Since we already have communities of folks through Launchpad who are doing the translations for the software, we trust them to tell us the locale-specific needs that they have.
This sounds a lot like you are saying you are trading "high quality and working with upstream" with "whatever we get from users without verifying".
Or maybe let me put it the other way:
If the upstream really is "frequently wrong", despite of being "(justifiably) hard to get updated", how come this "(justification)" does not apply to updates via launchpad? What magic makes launchpad updates so much more high quality that it's worth to fork locales?
> There are a few ways that we could fix this better
Please do. Ubuntu is getting a reputation of doing quick hacks to hide the problem instead of actually fixing the issue.
re: bitten by: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/4/232
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds