Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Position of changing lines needs improving in ja_JP.UTF-8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596900
Summary: Position of changing lines needs improving in ja_JP.UTF-8 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: man-db AssignedTo: varekova@redhat.com ReportedBy: mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: varekova@redhat.com, i18n-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora
Created an attachment (id=417335) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=417335) screenshot of fprintf(3) with both man-db and man
Description of problem: See screenshot:
With man-db, when trying to see Japanese man page fprintf(3) if some long line exists such line is split on unexpected positions and as the result fprintf(3) manual page cannot be seen easily with man-db.
With man (in F-13) long lines are split on expected positions.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): man-db-2.5.7-2.fc14.i686
How reproducible: 100%
Steps to Reproduce: 1. install man-pages-ja 2. man fprintf in LANG=ja_JP.UTF-8 3.
Actual results: See screenshot
Expected results: New line should begin at expected positions like in F-13 man
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=596900
Jan Vcelak jvcelak@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jvcelak@redhat.com Component|man-db |groff AssignedTo|varekova@redhat.com |jvcelak@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Jan Vcelak jvcelak@redhat.com 2010-05-31 07:06:32 EDT --- Hi.
I will take it. Seems like a 'groff' problem.
Jan
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=596900
Jan Vcelak jvcelak@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
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=596900
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ppisar@redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com 2010-06-06 19:40:06 EDT --- Proper word and line breaking rules are defined by JIS X 4051:2004 http://www.webstore.jsa.or.jp/webstore/Com/FlowControl.jsp?lang=en&bunsyoId=JIS+X+4051%3A2004&dantaiCd=JIS&status=1&pageNo=0. Wikipedia offers loose excerpt of some basic rules http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsoku_shori. More complex overview provides http://www.jepa.or.jp/press_release/reqEPUBJ.html and http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-jlreq-20090604/.
In addition to rules forbidding line break, groff must understand kana or kanji occupies two columns of fixed width terminal usually, whereas latin letters one column only. As man pages usually mix both of them, groff must compute proper width of each symbol precisely to get correct display width of a text.
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=596900
--- Comment #3 from Jan Vcelak jvcelak@redhat.com 2010-07-30 05:40:08 EDT --- Finally some update. I expect there will be some progress in upstream on this problem soon:
[Groff] character width in font files http://www.mail-archive.com/groff@gnu.org/msg05443.html
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=596900
--- Comment #5 from Daiki Ueno dueno@redhat.com 2010-08-05 21:54:29 EDT --- Jan and Tasaka-san,
You might want to try a test package with the patches about which we are discussing with the upstream:
http://ueno.fedorapeople.org/groff/groff-1.20.1-3.fc13.src.rpm
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=596900
--- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-08-06 15:35:59 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5)
Jan and Tasaka-san,
You might want to try a test package with the patches about which we are discussing with the upstream:
http://ueno.fedorapeople.org/groff/groff-1.20.1-3.fc13.src.rpm
I tried this on F-14 and it seems good.
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=596900
--- Comment #7 from Jan Vcelak jvcelak@redhat.com 2010-08-18 09:20:35 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5)
You might want to try a test package with the patches about which we are discussing with the upstream:
Thanks, it works well! However I don't want to include your patches now, as you qualified them as a "proof-of-concept". I definitely will not do it for F14. But I'm considering it into Rawhide.
Do you have some strong arguments?
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=596900
--- Comment #8 from Daiki Ueno dueno@redhat.com 2010-08-23 23:46:09 EDT --- I'd fine with it. Thanks for testing.
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=596900
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |538278(F14Target)
--- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2010-08-27 13:14:36 EDT --- I think this should be fixed in F-14, because for Japanese people this issue is rather critical. Setting F14Target.
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=596900
Jan Vcelak jvcelak@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(dueno@redhat.com)
--- Comment #10 from Jan Vcelak jvcelak@redhat.com 2010-09-06 07:34:42 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9)
I think this should be fixed in F-14, because for Japanese people this issue is rather critical. Setting F14Target.
I completely understand you. But I don't want to put some code, which is not ready and verified, into stable release. This situation is really unpleasant.
Daiki, are you still working on your patches? Can we expect some progress soon? Do you think, your changes are safe enough to be included in F14 as they are?
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=596900
Daiki Ueno dueno@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(dueno@redhat.com) |
--- Comment #11 from Daiki Ueno dueno@redhat.com 2010-09-06 21:39:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #9)
I think this should be fixed in F-14, because for Japanese people this issue is rather critical. Setting F14Target.
Frankly I though that this was not that critical - Debian has the same issue since the last year and I have seen only a few people complaining :)
(In reply to comment #10)
Daiki, are you still working on your patches? Can we expect some progress soon? Do you think, your changes are safe enough to be included in F14 as they are?
I'm now asking the original patch author about the status of his work but no response so far.
While it will take some time for the patch to be applied in upstream (because of paperwork, etc.), it might be worth asking them to check if the patch will not cause regression. I'll do that anyway.
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=596900
Jan Vcelak jvcelak@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(dueno@redhat.com)
--- Comment #12 from Jan Vcelak jvcelak@redhat.com 2010-11-18 09:12:09 EST --- Daiki, some news?
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=596900
Daiki Ueno dueno@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(dueno@redhat.com) |
--- Comment #13 from Daiki Ueno dueno@redhat.com 2010-11-23 21:10:00 EST --- Unfortunately, still no response from the upstream.
FWIW I updated the patches & SRPM to fix "TODO" lines in the original patch: http://ueno.fedorapeople.org/groff/ (There are still a couple of TODOs left, which look harmless to me).
Perhaps it might be a good time to start testing in rawhide?
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=596900
Jan Vcelak jvcelak@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Version|14 |rawhide Blocks|538278(F14Target) |
--- Comment #14 from Jan Vcelak jvcelak@redhat.com 2010-11-24 10:03:44 EST --- I agree. The patch won't make things worse. :-) I will push that into Rawhide soon.
Daiki, please, could you poke people on groff list again? Send the updated patches with your comments and that we are going to try it in Fedora Rawhide? I would be very glad if we managed to get this included upstream.
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=596900
Jan Vcelak jvcelak@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |groff-1.20.1-3.fc15 Resolution| |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2010-11-26 06:26:20
--- Comment #15 from Jan Vcelak jvcelak@redhat.com 2010-11-26 06:26:20 EST --- Fixed in groff-1.20.1-3.fc15
Daiki, thank you! Great work!
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=596900
Colin Watson cjwatson@ubuntu.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cjwatson@ubuntu.com
--- Comment #16 from Colin Watson cjwatson@ubuntu.com 2010-12-04 09:59:27 EST --- I've left some comments on this patch in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=552201 (also upstream, but their mailing list archive hasn't updated yet). Folks on this bug may be interested.
Just to be explicit (although Jan implied it in comment 1), I expect that the appearance of this bug had everything to do with the switch from groff 1.18.1.4 with the old multibyte patch in Fedora 13 to groff 1.20.1 with no such patch in Fedora 14, and nothing to do with the switch from man to man-db that happened in the same release cycle.
i18n-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org