Peter Gordon wrote:
Well, there was ☠ for a while but that looks to be pretty dead upstream. I'm sure that there will be more at some point, though.On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 10:25 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:Pro ASCII: * Hard to type unicode package names, therefore it is a usability problem.* Is there a limit? Even if European letters are fine what about Kanji or Sanskrit?Japanese package names would really be odd here. Would we spell the package name with its kanji or its phonetic (e.g., hiragana) reading? For example, say there were a package called 「勉強」 (Rōmaji: "benkyoo", English: study) which had flash-cards or some helpful studying software. Would we name this package by this Kanji, or its hiragana equivalent 「べんきょう」? Would we require the package to have Provides for this kana reading if named in Kanji, and vice-versa? What about transliterations (so-called "Rōmaji"): What transliteration system [1]should we use?If we do require the Provides, what if two packages end up being different kanji names that are homophones (read the same, phonetically)? One example that comes to mind is between 花 and 華 (both flower) and 鼻 (nose), all read as "hana" (hiragana: はな)? For even more fun, 神 (god), 紙 (paper), and 髮 (hair) all have readings of "kami" (かみ). And extending this to kanji compounds will yield even further enjoyment: 明日 (tomorrow) can be read as "asu" (あす) or "ashita" (あした), and 昨 日 (yesterday) can be read as "kinoo" (きのう) or "sakujitsu" (さくじつ) depending on formality.I suppose it would be similar for other languages based on both phonetic and logographic scripts, but I use Japanese as my example since that's what I'm attempting to learn currently. :) What about misc technical characters too - arrows (← → ↑ ↓) or the like? This can get quite overwhelming if we're not very careful.
You do a wonderful job of explaining what's wrong with us trying to adjust upstream's name to be ASCII but I just want to be certain we're on the same page by the end:In closing, I think it would be best to limit this to diacritic/accented characters. With an additional transliterated Provides, the ease case would be satisified, without the complexities provided by such writing systems as above.
Package names should follow upstream since attempting to transliterate or translate upstream names can't be done sanely on our side. For things that map easily into the ASCii set (diacritic/accented characters, for instance, as found in latin-1) a transliterated Provides can be added to make installation easier for ASCii-conditioned users but carrying this on to other scripts is a losing proposition.
Thanks, -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
