Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 01:25 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:One of the problems I have with "ban packages with unicode names" is that it doesn't consider what to do when a package name upstream is non-ASCii.Transliterate/translate them to ASCII.
This is a proposal I am strongly -1 to.1) I am against doing this at the Fedora level because of the potential for different, non-obvious names to proliferate at the distro level to confuse end-users.
2) Translation and transliteration are two entirely different means of taking a word in one language into another and will yield two entirely separate ASCII strings. Leaving this ambiguous will exacerbate #1.
3) Collisions. Transliteration can cause collisions between different languages and homophones within a language. Translation is just as bad.
It is not as simple as you make out. With "pictographic" charsets (not only traditional Chinese) different languages may pronounce a character in different ways. So the transliteration will depend on the language the naming author was envisioning when they created it.My -1 vote is really a vote against having the Fedora packager make up a name for an upstream package which I very strongly oppose.Why would this be a problem?May-be this is a problem with "pictographic" charsets (May-be traditional Chinese), but I am having difficulties to imagine this to be a problem elsewhere, because most (all?) languages have an nominal transliteration/translation to ASCII.
This isn't limited to pictographic languages. For instance, look at wikipedia's current rules on transliterating Cyrillic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Cyrillic)Other things to note from wikipedia are that they have multiple methods of transliterating from cyrillic within a language depending on the usage of the word and whether it currently has a common transliteration. I think this is just too complex an issue for us to say there is one logical and right way to transliterate a name and expect every other distro to use the same conventions. This needs to be done cross-distro at least, upstream if possible.
-Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
