| |||||||||||||
A report from OSCON 2007A report from OSCON 2007Posted Aug 5, 2007 16:51 UTC (Sun) by jbailey (subscriber, #16890)In reply to: A report from OSCON 2007 by jwb Parent article: A report from OSCON 2007
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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
|
|||||||||||||