Hello, On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 10:31:55AM -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > The problem with separate language packs is when do you install them? > They could potentially be added to the comps files so that each > additional OOo language would only be installed if you selected that > language in Anaconda. However, what do you do after the fact? What more needs to be done? Does using the installed language packs require additional manual intervention? > How > would they be distributed? How would you notify users of the additional > language packs' existence? Same as you distribute/notify about any other package - they either are on the Core CDs, or in a (presumably well-known) repository. > It may well be from a distribution standpoint that DicOOo is the best > way to go since it empowers users to install only what they need, and > makes it easily available. However, it has a few drawbacks (none fatal > I think): its basically a big macro, some people are uneasy about that, > and there is also no guarantee how long the information it uses will be > up online. * It requires additional manual action after installation (consider kickstart) Post-install scripts would probably not be able to use DicOOo, so they would have to mostly reimplement the language RPMs * It does not collaborate with the RPM package database * <paranoid>Users might download a malicious "dicOOo" script from something that looks like a legitimate openoffice.org mirror</paranoid> > Looking forward as the Fedora Core / Red Hat maintainer of the OOo > packages, what do people think I should do? Given all the above (and the fact that Czech was included in the main package in previous releases :) I'd prefer language packages (we do have about 400 MB left on the fourth CD, after all), but I understand that's additional work to be done. While I don't have the disk space to build the main OO.o package, I'd be glad to help with building the l10n packs. Mirek
