[arch-general] Country Name (ISO-3116) Issues

Allan McRae allan at archlinux.org
Sun Jul 1 20:47:42 EDT 2012

On 02/07/12 09:47, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Gimme a break. These kind of political issues aren't solved by "taking
>> it upstream". Since when are politicians or people under the influence
>> of politics known for their outstanding adherence to logic and reason?
>> It's not such a simple technical thing that you can "take it upstream."
>> If you have any idea how the ISO works you will wake up to the fact of
>> how ridiculous that suggestion is. If Taiwan (ROC) can't get it to
>> happen, what do you expect of us?
> I didn't mean to imply that this was a simple problem to solve (and I agree with
> your aim for what that's worth). Simply that we do not want to make political
> decisions at all. This might be a straightforward one, but it sets a
> precedent and
> next time around we might be asked to decide on something less clear-cut.
>> But as has been suggested maybe Arch should choose a different upstream
>> for this kind of information. Please open your mind a little, a false
>> standard is no standard at all.
> I had a look at ICU, but could not find any satisfactory
> documentation. They claim
> to take their data from the same ISO standard that we already use, but I could
> find no explanation for the discrepancy.
> To be a bit constructive: IMHO any proposal for a change must be made in general
> terms, and not by special-casing based on this issue. So, if we can
> find a new upstream
> that is comparable to ISO3166, but at the same time is somehow more
> "neutral", that
> would be something to consider I guess.
> I have to agree with Allan though, this issue is likely going nowhere.

I have found a solution.   All mirrors in countries with disputed names
are just removed from the official mirrorlist.


More information about the arch-general mailing list