Summary of the 2008-03-11 Packaging Committee meeting
a.badger at gmail.com
Fri Mar 14 01:10:27 UTC 2008
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 09:41 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 01:25 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>>> One of the problems I have with "ban packages with unicode names" is
>>>> that it doesn't consider what to do when a package name upstream is
>>> Transliterate/translate them to ASCII.
>> This is a proposal I am strongly -1 to.
> IMO, you are making fuzz about nothing. For most languages such native
> transliterations exist.
>>>> My -1 vote is really a vote against having the Fedora
>>>> packager make up a name for an upstream package which I very strongly
>>> Why would this be a problem?
>>> May-be this is a problem with "pictographic" charsets (May-be
>>> traditional Chinese), but I am having difficulties to imagine this to be
>>> a problem elsewhere, because most (all?) languages have an nominal
>>> transliteration/translation to ASCII.
>> It is not as simple as you make out. With "pictographic" charsets (not
>> only traditional Chinese) different languages may pronounce a character
>> in different ways.
> That's why I mentioned them. It's a place I can imagine (I don't speak
> any Asian language nor can I write any of them),
> translation/transliteration could become problematic.
>> So the transliteration will depend on the language
>> the naming author was envisioning when they created it.
> Yes - But ask yourself: What is better, naming a package "koji" or
> seeing an (In my locale) unreadable Asian glyph (rsp. a "boxed char"),
> probably only Asians are able to type?
>> This isn't limited to pictographic languages. For instance, look at
>> wikipedia's current rules on transliterating Cyrillic:
> Yes, transliteration into latin/ASCII depends on the authors locale!
> Sometimes it's simple (as with French accents: "é->e"), sometimes it's
> less simple (as with German umlauts: ß->ss, ä->ae), sometimes it's more
> complicated (as with Cyrillic, Hebrew, Arab, etc.), sometimes it's
> difficult (e.g. Asian).
>> Other things to note from wikipedia are that they have multiple methods
>> of transliterating from cyrillic within a language depending on the
>> usage of the word and whether it currently has a common transliteration.
>> I think this is just too complex an issue for us to say there is one
>> logical and right way to transliterate a name and expect every other
>> distro to use the same conventions. This needs to be done cross-distro
>> at least, upstream if possible.
> I do not agree. We should not try to solve the world's problems. Instead
> we should (IMO can not avoid to) restrict ourselves to a smallest common
> denominator to keep Fedora going.
> Dimitry will not be able to type my last name (contains an é), I won't
> be able to type your name in its Japanese writing nor Dimitry's in his
> native Cyrillic spelling.
> This doesn't have any impact on our current lives, because
> transliterations/translations exist.
So propose banning the package until upstream changes the name, gives an
official transliteration to ASCII, or a cross-distro group decides on a
transliterated name for it (It was just mentioned to me that there's a
new mailing list and project for cross-distro collaboration. It's early
in its development so this may or may not develop into the kind of place
where this kind of collaboration would take place_).
My objection is not based on unicode==good; it's based on not wanting to
do at the distro level something that should be done for all packagers
in all distros.
.. _: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/distributions
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20080313/a11c33f5/attachment-0002.bin
More information about the devel