On Thu, 5 Jul 2018 at 16:08, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: [..] > Anyway, the langpacks split was made with full awareness of %_install_langs, > see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Glibc_locale_subpackaging. Yep and simple this makes glibcs.spec one of the most complicated Fedora specs files by implementing generate set of sub packages to install lang dependent resources. If glibc and few other packages will be only using %lang() and everything aroud will be adding proper %_install_langs settings it will be not necessary to create next almost 200 glibc sub packages. Even separation glibc-minimal-langpack files is pointless because those files must be installed always to not have constantly annoying warning messages about missing locale "C" files. [..] > > Result is obvious: number of *langpack* packages is growing. > I don't think this is a big problem. The number of languages that can > be supported can't go much higher (in principle there's maybe ~2000 languages > alive nowadays, but most of them are dying quickly, and are unlikely to ever > get glibc locale support). The 192 langpacks we have now is nothing compared > to the texlive package list. Just please correct me if I'm wrong. Does it mean that someone already started thinking about generate another 2k TeX packages? =8-O If it is true I'll put my private money to fund for this person special IgNoble price :) Fedora has those only glibc sub packages because nothing OOTB in installer adds /etc/rpm/macros file with single line of text forefeet start install first package. Many packages have already marked man pages and gettext .mo files which have proper %lang() metadata. How you can compare probably single python code modification in kickstart code to number of man/hour resources spend by all Fedora packagers which are maintaining *langpack* sub packages scheme and man/hour resources already spent by Fedora end users choosing those langpacks? Yes .. this is level; of the "elegance and simplicity" which many Fedora packages already are trying hardly avoid by any cost. Again .. just please try sometimes to think a bit broader. If you will repeat enough times "I don't think this is a big problem" by a mass of those even smallest issues at least one big problem sooner or later will start kicking back. You already must know that this effect is well know in engendering and its name is "dead by thousands cuts". Someone implementing langpacks in glibc have been trying to not install some resources at the same time lost all other .mo and %lang) depended files installed in the system. This like trying to move around few buckets of sand sitting in the middle of the desert. How big proportion is between those disk space which is possible to "save" by using proper set of *langpack* packages you can check on you own system by add /etc/rpm/macros with line like: %_install_langs en,pl (or any other set of the languages) is possible to check by run below oneliner: # rpm --rebuilddb; dnf cean all; df -k /; rpm -qal|grep LC_MESSAGES|xargs rpm -qf 2>&1|sort|uniq| xargs dnf -yq reinstall; rpm --rebuilddb; df -k / and compare reduction used disk space to summary size of all Fedora glibc-langpack* packages. kloczek -- Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/UDFAFJOR23NC7KCOFSWGWYOYFO33UXV6/
