Re: Ubuntu and language packs

2009-02-08 Thread Martin Pitt
Surfaz Gemon Meme [2009-02-09  0:56 +0100]:
> Ok, I understand, but what about these packages?
> 
> myspell-en-au
> myspell-en-gb
> myspell-en-za
> openoffice.org-help-en-gb
> openoffice.org-l10n-en-gb
> openoffice.org-l10n-en-za
> openoffice.org-thesaurus-en-au
> thunderbird-locale-en-gb
> wbritish
> 
> You need to have English support in 2 types (UK and US) of English?

Since the language packs are organized by language, and not by
language/country (then there would be even more of them), each
language specific one needs to provide all existing country dialects,
yes. E. g. for English you need U.S., British, Australian,
Southafrican, etc.; for Spanish you need Spain, Argentina, etc.

So the installer would need to install at least
language-support-translations-en; this would get rid of
language-support-writing-en (dictionaries, etc.) and language-pack-en
(UI translations), and save a few MB.

Due to the reasons Colin pointed out, I think that installing them all
by default is still a good choice. It comes on the CD, so you don't
need to download them during installation, and after installation you
can always remove them completely with System -> Administration ->
Languages.

Martin
-- 
Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)

-- 
ubuntu-translators mailing list
ubuntu-translators@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-translators


Re: Ubuntu and language packs

2009-02-08 Thread Surfaz Gemon Meme
Ok, I understand, but what about these packages?

myspell-en-au
myspell-en-gb
myspell-en-za
openoffice.org-help-en-gb
openoffice.org-l10n-en-gb
openoffice.org-l10n-en-za
openoffice.org-thesaurus-en-au
thunderbird-locale-en-gb
wbritish

You need to have English support in 2 types (UK and US) of English?

As I said before:

"It is curious, UK & U.S English.. Also, it has even dialects of
English:  myspell-en-au (English australian) or myspell-en-za (English
southafrican)..."


2009/2/9 Colin Watson 

> Firstly, the original source of this was
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/localechooser/+bug/13452.
>
> It's useful in a few slightly arcane contexts (oem-config comes
> immediately to mind) to have a UTF-8 locale that's guaranteed to exist
> immediately after a fresh installation. C doesn't qualify, because it
> doesn't define handling of non-ASCII characters, and for instance if you
> run newt applications in LC_ALL=C you won't get any non-ASCII characters
> displayed; it's somewhat useful for this kind of purpose that we always
> generate en_US.UTF-8. (Yes, I know there are other roundabout answers,
> but there is software in Ubuntu that depends on this at the moment.)
>
> Making sure that we always have some help files is a useful property, as
> Martin says, since this is *not* an area where the gettext properties
> Paul Smith described apply (the language-pack-* packages themselves are
> nice and simple, but the grottier edges of language-support-* certainly
> aren't); and in general it is useful to have a fallback in the event
> that the native support packages are insufficient. I know that English
> isn't universally spoken, of course, but it does have rather wide
> second- or third-language coverage and it has the more important
> property that it tends to have very complete help files and the like,
> since it's usually the language in which help files are originally
> written.
>
> I don't think the installer has a reasonable way to perform the
> substitution you suggest (only openoffice.org-help-en-us and
> gimp-help-en). We have language-support-* for a reason; I wouldn't be
> happy about having to dig around inside this abstraction in the
> installer.
>
> In short: yes, I have long been aware that the fact that we always
> install English language support is suboptimal for various reasons. For
> languages with very broad translation coverage, such as Spanish, it is
> probably generally unwelcome; for languages with much narrower coverage
> it is not clear that the same reaction would hold. The current state is
> a compromise between various requirements, so I would rather not simply
> revert it in favour of one extreme.
>
> Perhaps we could do a finer-grained job of installing fallback packages,
> maybe using the relatively new language-support-TYPE-LL packages, or
> maybe with the aid of some additional metadata in those packages to
> indicate whether they provide something reasonably complete.
>
> --
> Colin Watson   [cjwat...@ubuntu.com]
>
-- 
ubuntu-translators mailing list
ubuntu-translators@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-translators