On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:58:30 +0100 (CET), Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > >> Nope. You intentionally keep confusing the [...] > > > > I disagree, and I see we don't discuss the same things. > > Perhaps you're on a mission. > > No more than you are. Still I don't presume so much. > Very reasonable so far. > > > What I do care about is that the Linux distribution is not subverted > > with languages and glyphs I don't understand or can't display. I also > > very much care about the project language that is used on the primary > > mailing-lists, for example. > > Here you take a massive leap into paranoïa land. Most what-if horror > cases advanced in this thread already occurred, and the distribution > was not subverted, the project primary language didn't change, in fact > it was all so little invasive it wasn't noticed at all. It's no secret that the review guidelines are incomplete/imperfect. Stuff can slip through until it is discovered. > So I don't follow you. The evidence seems to be we cope with UTF-8 & > non-English pretty well. Do you have more examples of UTF-8 package names in Fedora (without that I need to script a srpm/spec checker)? > > So, the system is not ready yet, which is a blocker criterion as I > > pointed out before. > > The system is never ready. This is IT. There are problems, they get > fixed, and we don't wait for the perfect system before ack-ing a > roadmap. "Not ready yet" and "roadmap" are close to eachother. Let's imagine we didn't have UTF-8 filesystems already. That would be an example of "not ready yet" for UTF-8 package file names. Instead, we see that some multi-byte encoded file names display as "garbage" in default installations (text-mode as well as GUIs). That's the current case of "not ready yet" for permitting arbitrary package file names. Is that more comprehensible? > >> >> We already ship lots of code commented in other languages than > >> >> English > >> >> (for example, OO.o IIRC) so this ship also sailed a long time > >> ago. > >> > > >> > That's still only due to its Star Office history, isn't it? > >> > >> No. > >> > >> That's due to the fact Fedora is a *distribution*, built from [...] > > > > When Star Division developed the closed-source Star Office, Fedora > > did not even exist. > > So? We ship a lot of stuff developped before Fedora existed. And not > only in historic packages. And I've not such an inflated view of > Fedora to believe Fedora existing or not would have changed the > slightest bit in the situation. No further comment other than pointing out that OO.o's primary project website is in English. You argue and argue and argue, and I don't want to be dragged down that road. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
