Ubuntu and language packs

[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 <cjwatson at ubuntu.com>

> 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                                       [cjwatson at ubuntu.com]
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/attachments/20090209/8f651df7/attachment.html>