9:29 p.m.
Currently we ship the following localizations in OOo 2.0pre that
don't correspond to any glibc supported locale:
- eo
- kn-IN
- ns
- tn
- zu
Any reason to keep them?
Bill
10:54 p.m.
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Currently we ship the following localizations in OOo 2.0pre that
don't correspond to any glibc supported locale:
- eo
- kn-IN
- ns
- tn
- zu
Any reason to keep them?
Well, what's the equivalent locale in glibc? And if its not supported in glibc,
why isn't it supported there?
In any case, yes, we should probably drop them.
Dan
12:37 a.m.
Dan Williams (dcbw(a)redhat.com) said:
> Currently we ship the following localizations in OOo 2.0pre
that
> don't correspond to any glibc supported locale:
>
> - eo
> - kn-IN
> - ns
> - tn
> - zu
>
> Any reason to keep them?
Well, what's the equivalent locale in glibc?
Not sure; I'd presume they'd map to the same locale name, if they
existed in glibc. Note that the package description is generic enough
to not really tell you what the locale *is* that they support. :)
Bill
2:53 a.m.
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 01:37 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Dan Williams (dcbw(a)redhat.com) said:
> > Currently we ship the following localizations in OOo 2.0pre that
> > don't correspond to any glibc supported locale:
> >
> > - eo
esperanto, ok I guess I can drop this one :-)
> > - ns
> > - tn
sepedi and tswana, south african languages, if the rest of fedora
doesn't support them I guess it makes sense to drop them.
> > - zu
> > - kn-IN
zu -> glibc zu_ZA south african zulu, and kn_IN -> glibc kn_IN indian
kannada, locale -a shows these two so we'll hold onto them I reckon.
> >
> > Any reason to keep them?
>
> Well, what's the equivalent locale in glibc?
Not sure; I'd presume they'd map to the same locale name, if they
existed in glibc. Note that the package description is generic enough
to not really tell you what the locale *is* that they support. :)
The fact the langpacks worked at all overwhelmed me :-), I'll look into
changing the langpack names to match the glibc locale and adding
descriptions for what languages they provide.
list of language names from OOo's perspective
http://go-ooo.org/lxr/source/util/tools/source/intntl/isolang.cxx#248
C.
3:31 a.m.
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 08:53 +0000, Caolan McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 01:37 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Dan Williams (dcbw(a)redhat.com) said:
> > > Currently we ship the following localizations in OOo 2.0pre that
> > > don't correspond to any glibc supported locale:
> > >
> > > - eo
esperanto, ok I guess I can drop this one :-)
hmm, there is no langpack-eo, perhaps typo for langpack-eu, which is
basque -> e.g. glibc eu_ES
C.
9:57 a.m.
Caolan McNamara (caolanm(a)redhat.com) said:
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 08:53 +0000, Caolan McNamara wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 01:37 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Dan Williams (dcbw(a)redhat.com) said:
> > > > Currently we ship the following localizations in OOo 2.0pre that
> > > > don't correspond to any glibc supported locale:
> > > >
> > > > - eo
>
> esperanto, ok I guess I can drop this one :-)
hmm, there is no langpack-eo,
openoffice.org-langpack-eo-1.9.82-1.i386.rpm
eu is already covered, and is in the comps file now.
Bill
11:50 a.m.
ons, 09.03.2005 kl. 16.57 skrev Bill Nottingham:
Caolan McNamara (caolanm(a)redhat.com) said:
> On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 08:53 +0000, Caolan McNamara wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 01:37 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > Dan Williams (dcbw(a)redhat.com) said:
> > > > > Currently we ship the following localizations in OOo 2.0pre
that
> > > > > don't correspond to any glibc supported locale:
> > > > >
> > > > > - eo
> >
> > esperanto, ok I guess I can drop this one :-)
>
> hmm, there is no langpack-eo,
openoffice.org-langpack-eo-1.9.82-1.i386.rpm
Whoho! Langpack's are actually *comming*! Great!
3:08 p.m.
HI
Just downloaded OO2 beta and its looking good on my FC 3 Gnome box at
the moment, and it's running fine on this.
Well done to all
Bob
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 18:50 +0100, Kyrre Ness Sjobak wrote:
ons, 09.03.2005 kl. 16.57 skrev Bill Nottingham:
> Caolan McNamara (caolanm(a)redhat.com) said:
> > On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 08:53 +0000, Caolan McNamara wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 01:37 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > > Dan Williams (dcbw(a)redhat.com) said:
> > > > > > Currently we ship the following localizations in OOo 2.0pre
that
> > > > > > don't correspond to any glibc supported locale:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - eo
> > >
> > > esperanto, ok I guess I can drop this one :-)
> >
> > hmm, there is no langpack-eo,
>
> openoffice.org-langpack-eo-1.9.82-1.i386.rpm
Whoho! Langpack's are actually *comming*! Great!
7:23 a.m.
Caolan McNamara wrote:
>>>- ns
>>>- tn
sepedi and tswana, south african languages, if the rest of fedora
doesn't support them I guess it makes sense to drop them.
'ns' isn't a registered iso 639-1 language code to my knowledge.
Looks like Sepedi is another name for Northern Sotho -
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=SRT, which is
iso 639-2 "nso". (There is a GTK+ translation for nso)
Regards,
Owen
9:32 a.m.
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 08:23 -0500, Owen Taylor wrote:
Caolan McNamara wrote:
>>>>- ns
>>>>- tn
>
>
> sepedi and tswana, south african languages, if the rest of fedora
> doesn't support them I guess it makes sense to drop them.
'ns' isn't a registered iso 639-1 language code to my knowledge.
Looks like Sepedi is another name for Northern Sotho -
http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=SRT, which is
iso 639-2 "nso". (There is a GTK+ translation for nso)
AFAIK, OOo does not use 3-letter language codes...
Dan
6988
days inactive
6988
days old
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
9 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Bill Nottingham -
Caolán McNamara -
Dan Williams -
Frank smith -
Kyrre Ness Sjobak -
Owen Taylor