[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 734976] libreoffice-langpack-*-* not pulled in by yum install libreoffice

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734976

--- Comment #10 from Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> 2011-09-07 02:02:06 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> BCP-47

Right thanks.

> I have some code to map existing glibc locales to best-fit
> tags http://people.redhat.com/caolanm/BCP47/ but its err... a work in progress.

Cool, that's interesting.  Is it in version control somewhere?
A python binding might also help adoption by anaconda/yum.

> We can add some provides I suppose for now.

Ok thanks, libreoffice-3.4.3.2-6.fc16 looks good.

> If there is a move for langpack naming guidelines
> I'd like to know in order to make my own counter proposal ;-)

Well I would be happier to collaborate on a good solution. :)
Certainly the current mapping of locales to langs/scripts
is often awkward - so I hear what you're saying.

As you know the main fedora-wide problem with langpacks naming
currently is not so much the language suffixes but the variety
of upstream naming for them.

Anyway perhaps if Fedora langpack subpackages provided something
like "%{name}-langpack(<BCP47code>)" that might help to simplify things.
Some standard rpm macros for langpacks might be able to help with that.
Probably need to think more how to map optimally into yum-langpacks searching.

Maybe comps lang groups should use BCP-47 too.
That would be ideal for Chinese at least, and maybe
some other langs.

Do you want to open an rfe against yum-langpacks for
BCP-47 support to track this anyway?

I would be interested to hear more on your ideas.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.