| |||||||||||||
A report from OSCON 2007A report from OSCON 2007Posted Aug 3, 2007 23:03 UTC (Fri) by johnkarp (subscriber, #39285)In reply to: A report from OSCON 2007 by tetromino Parent article: A report from OSCON 2007
I fixed the issue on my gentoo box by modifying /usr/sbin/locale-gen (its
I reran locale-gen, and the archive was created. The number
I filed a gentoo bug:
(Log in to post comments)
A report from OSCON 2007 Posted Aug 4, 2007 0:14 UTC (Sat) by jwb (guest, #15467) [Link] On Ubuntu, this is the rational given for using --no-archive:
"The rationale is that with an archive it is not possible to mix system and user defined locales by setting LOCPATH."
Presumably this complaint was raised by some user who wanted to so exactly that thing. On Ubuntu, this can be changed in /etc/belocs/locale-gen.conf
A report from OSCON 2007 Posted Aug 5, 2007 16:51 UTC (Sun) by jbailey (subscriber, #16890) [Link] Right. In Ubuntu we don't use the locales from the upstream glibc tree on the grounds that they're quite frequently wrong and (justifiably) hard to get updated. Since we already have communities of folks through Launchpad who are doing the translations for the software, we trust them to tell us the locale-specific needs that they have.
There are a few ways that we could fix this better and work on having multiple locale archives or some such, but we just haven't gotten there yet.
Ideally this could be resolved Posted Aug 9, 2007 2:21 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] If the translations can be pushed upstream, everyone can benefit and you can use the cache.
A report from OSCON 2007 Posted Aug 9, 2007 8:34 UTC (Thu) by nhippi (subscriber, #34640) [Link] > In Ubuntu we don't use the locales from the upstream glibc tree on the grounds that they're quite frequently wrong and (justifiably) hard to get updated. Since we already have communities of folks through Launchpad who are doing the translations for the software, we trust them to tell us the locale-specific needs that they have.
This sounds a lot like you are saying you are trading "high quality and working with upstream" with "whatever we get from users without verifying".
Or maybe let me put it the other way:
If the upstream really is "frequently wrong", despite of being "(justifiably) hard to get updated", how come this "(justification)" does not apply to updates via launchpad? What magic makes launchpad updates so much more high quality that it's worth to fork locales?
> There are a few ways that we could fix this better
Please do. Ubuntu is getting a reputation of doing quick hacks to hide the problem instead of actually fixing the issue.
re: bitten by: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/4/232
A report from OSCON 2007 Posted Aug 9, 2007 3:37 UTC (Thu) by jdub (subscriber, #27) [Link] I updated an existing Ubuntu bug with information from this thread, and some strace logs of 'cat /dev/null' with and without a locale-archive.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/55906
Thanks for raising this!
|
|||||||||||||