On Sunday, 28 February 2016 at 23:31, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > On Feb 28, 2016, at 5:08 PM, Lars Seipel <lars.seipel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 08:56:27AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >> 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. > > > > This would force the installation of at least one langpack, no? The C, > > POSIX and *C.UTF-8* locales are builtin, so for many systems it is very > > reasonable to run without any language pack installed. > > Yeah, the workaround we're doing there is to have a glibc-minimal-langpacks > subpackage that satisfies the requirement but contains no actual files. > It's a bit of a hack, but not a particularly awful one. Why a subpackage? Shouldn't the main glibc package (or glibc-common) simply provide the C, C.UTF-8 and POSIX langpacks? Regards, Dominik -- Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org "Faith manages." -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations" -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
