On 02/26/2016 10:39 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 08:56:27AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> On 02/26/2016 08:39 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: >>> Dne 26.2.2016 v 11:20 Carlos O'Donell napsal(a): >>>> No languages are available by default, we did this because otherwise >>>> you keep carrying forward locales that you can't remove. >>> >>> For this reasons we have weak dependencies. I guess that: >>> Recommends: glibc-all-langpacks >>> can do the work (install or by default, can be safely removed). Or >>> Suggests: glibc-all-langpacks >>> so it is not installed by default, but users can get the information that it can enhance the usability of glibc. >>> >> >> >> Yeah, I think the best approach would be to have all the langpacks offer a >> virtual Provides: glibc-langpack and have the main package Requires: >> glibc-langpack and Suggests: glibc-all-langpacks. The net result would be that >> unless a specific langpack was chosen, you'd end up with all of them to satisfy >> the requirement. (This would also unbreak the upgrades without needing a patch >> to dnf system-upgrade) > > That would be a much better solution. dnf-system-upgrade so far didn't > have any special handling for specific packages (except for a check > that the kernel is in the upgrade transaction) and there no mechanism > like this is implemented. We are investigating switching to this. It shouldn't be a problem, and with a quick rebuild of glibc in F24 I think we'll be ready. I just need to run through the testing quickly on Monday. All of our langpacks are auto-generated based on glibc supported locales so there is no grunt work in changing, just testing again that it works smoothly. Cheers, Carlos. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
