the code "eo" for the language Esperanto is a valid one, even if the GNU C Library doesn't support it; anyhow, libx11 doesn't need "eo" to be supported by glibc, otherwise, when those lines are uncommented, things would break somehow, and that doesn't occur.
and search for territory_code, twice, and you will see that XX is a code allowed for private use, which is the case, since Esperanto is a language that doesn't necessary belong to a specific territory. As state on that page, ZZ would be a valid code also.
is valid for this bug too: I think I installed all the necessary packages, but the bomb icon doesn't appear, and I don't know what to do to generate the backtrace you need.
I saw the comment just above the commented lines. It explains why they were commented, but doesn't justify the commenting. As you can see here:
http:// www.unicode. org/cldr/ data/charts/ summary/ eo.html www.loc. gov/standards/ iso639- 2/php/code_ list.php
http://
the code "eo" for the language Esperanto is a valid one, even if the GNU C Library doesn't support it; anyhow, libx11 doesn't need "eo" to be supported by glibc, otherwise, when those lines are uncommented, things would break somehow, and that doesn't occur.
As for the "XX" territory, see:
http:// unicode. org/reports/ tr35/tr35- 6.html
and search for territory_code, twice, and you will see that XX is a code allowed for private use, which is the case, since Esperanto is a language that doesn't necessary belong to a specific territory. As state on that page, ZZ would be a valid code also.
And, finally, what I just wrote on
https:/ /launchpad. net/ubuntu/ +source/ gdm/+bug/ 84011
is valid for this bug too: I think I installed all the necessary packages, but the bomb icon doesn't appear, and I don't know what to do to generate the backtrace you need.