Comments on: Localization pitfalls https://backreference.org/2010/04/24/localization-pitfalls/ Proudly uncool and out of fashion Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:28:11 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.8.2 By: waldner https://backreference.org/2010/04/24/localization-pitfalls/#comment-158 Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:28:11 +0000 http://backreference.org/?p=1581#comment-158 In reply to arjun.

That's normal, you don't have to have it. It just means that it wasn't built when libc was installed.
If you are on a recent Linux, you should find the list of locales that were built in the file /etc/locale.gen. You can edit the file to add a line like en_IN.UTF-8 UTF-8 and then run locale-gen (as root) to generate all the locales. That should build all the listed locales including the en_IN.utf8 locale and then you should see it when you do locale -a.

]]> By: arjun https://backreference.org/2010/04/24/localization-pitfalls/#comment-157 Thu, 29 Apr 2010 19:00:30 +0000 http://backreference.org/?p=1581#comment-157 In reply to waldner.

yeah, its fine, never mind! thanks for the article! :)

but its weird, i dont have a en_IN.utf8

]]> By: waldner https://backreference.org/2010/04/24/localization-pitfalls/#comment-156 Thu, 29 Apr 2010 18:57:36 +0000 http://backreference.org/?p=1581#comment-156 In reply to arjun.

$ locale -a | grep en_IN
en_IN
en_IN.utf8
$ echo 'abcd' | LC_ALL=en_IN sed 's/[A-C]/X/g'
aXXd

Sorry, I can't help you further :-) Obviously there must be something else on your system that produces those results.

]]> By: arjun https://backreference.org/2010/04/24/localization-pitfalls/#comment-155 Thu, 29 Apr 2010 18:53:08 +0000 http://backreference.org/?p=1581#comment-155 zoug@orange:~$ locale -a
C
en_AG
en_AU.utf8
en_BW.utf8
en_CA.utf8
en_DK.utf8
en_GB.utf8
en_HK.utf8
en_IE.utf8
en_IN
en_NG
en_NZ.utf8
en_PH.utf8
en_SG.utf8
en_US.utf8
en_ZA.utf8
en_ZW.utf8
POSIX
zoug@orange:~$

i have sed version 4.2.1

]]> By: waldner https://backreference.org/2010/04/24/localization-pitfalls/#comment-154 Thu, 29 Apr 2010 18:48:04 +0000 http://backreference.org/?p=1581#comment-154 In reply to arjun.

Ok, as I said it may be that your system implements en_IN differently. Or it may also be that the en_IN locale isn't available on your system, so it's ignored and the default used. To see if the en_IN locale is available, you have to check if it appears in the list output by locale -a. It may also be that your sed is old and does not implement localization.
Part of the weirdness of localization is exactly this imho.

]]>