Re: bf build with lang chooser turned on
[This mail is sent to debian-boot list, but copies are sent to
the maintainers of slang and newt, as well as the author of utf8
patch for them.]
Congratulations, Michael! It is very nice thing to hear that
we can use font-reduction of utf8 fonts with bterm. :)
In article <[🔎] 20000524133340.A11450@transas.com>,
at Wed, 24 May 2000 13:33:40 +0400,
Michael Sobolev <mss@transas.com> writes:
> Again. As soon as language chooser goes mainstream we'll have reconsider the
> way everything is done.
I think that, we have to test the language chooser version well
before it goes mainstream. And the test should be done in the
current building scheme, in order to avoid the confusion.
I have consider to add the case of LINGUA=utf8.
Since woody version of b-f will be drastically changed, I prefer
to do the minimal change in order to use the language chooser
in potato version. If you will do the work for woody version,
then you should consult Joey Hess.
> No. They will be of use for tasksel package (which is separate, is it not?).
> And, I am pretty sure, there will be more. The best thing would be having
> special slang and newt packages.
Well, then we should consult the maintainers of slang and newt.
[An explanation of the background, for the maintainers of slang and newt:
We need the utf8 support from slang and newt, to build the i18n version
of boot-floppies using utf8 based solution. Now we consider which is
preferable, having the special version of slang and newt only in b-f,
or having the separate package for the special version of them.
Please track this thread from the mail archive on www.debian.org.
The patches for utf8 support is:
http://www.rano.org/mutt/slang-1.4.0-ege5.diff
http://www.rano.org/mutt/newt-0.50-5.3-ege1.diff
written by Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS <edmundo@rano.org>]
But the tasksel is a separate package, and it may be used independently.
I think this means that tasksel can not depends on the usage of utf8,
at least for potato.
> > I think we can commit the source for libutf8, at least.
> > libutf8 (http://www.rano.org/tmp/bogl-libutf8.tar.gz) is
> > just 12811 bytes in compressed tar form, and about 80kbytes
> > in extracted tree. I think we should commit this into cvs
> > at first. How do you think ?
> Look, libutf8 would be a nice separate package as well. :) But, if lc is going
> to appear in one of potato versions, then we'll have some problems, as we won't
> be able to put anything in potato. So, I'd agree. Where to put it?
> utilities/libutf8?
[lc: language chooser in boot-floppies/utilities/dbootstrap]
Well, libutf8 can go into woody until glibc-2.2 comes. But currently
we work for potato, at least I think so. And yes, utilities/libutf8
is the location where to put it.
> Good. I have also enjoyed the way Japanese write, though I did not understand
> anything. :)
I have checked bterm also with my sample Japanese text written in utf8
(I used jvim-canna in potato), and it has been shown correctly.
> > about 35kbytes. But I have problem with the patch for slang.
> So did I. I had to obtain slang 1.4.0 and only the I succeeded. Edmund, you
> were going to create a patch for the latest version. Could you please do that?
Maybe it is possible to update the patch for slang 1.4.1, I think.
But backporting for 1.3.9 seems to be too hard. The potato version
of slang1 is 1.3.9, so if it is possible to add utf8 support on
1.3.9, then it will be benefitical for us to build the i18n version
of potato b-f. I don't know if this can be done though.
> > about 108kbytes. Maybe something can be done to extract the
> > required code from the source package of newt and use them
> > to build the required patched libnewt0-utf8.
> I do not quite understand what you mean under `required code' here...
Ah, I mean that it may be possible to make the trick in Makefile
so that it will extract the source code of newt from the source
package of newt, apply the patch, and then build the libnewt-utf8
library to use it in boot-floppies, automatically. This needs
that the source package of newt exists in pre-defined location,
but does not need the inclusion of the whole source of newt in
cvs for boot-floppies.
> Good news! :) If you check utilities/bogl directory, you'll find a program
> called reduce-font (make reduce-font). I tried to create a font for
> release_notes in all availble languages. The resulting font was only about 60K
Excellent! I will check it. Thanks for working.
> > I think these font files are the same one which is provided
> > in XFree86 4.0, and we can use these as DFSG compatible one.
> What package these are in?
I think there are no official package for XFree86 4.0, at least in potato.
> > But if we try to build the true i18n floppy includes
> > the asian font support, then font reduction technology
> > may be the essential.
> It's there! :)
Again, nice work!
> > can not afford to get them. Using this approach, we will use
> > the same resc/root/drv disks for all LINGUA, and one of several
> > (maybe two or so) "font and message" disk. Users can switch
> > the language by replace that "font and message" disk.
> More floppies, more problems!
Ah, maybe. Now we will have 16x2 resc and root for each lang
(I think drv can be used independently.). The "font and message"
disk approach will have 2 common resc and root, and 16 (at maximum.
maybe much less disks is really needed because some lang can use
the common font). 32 -> 18 (or less) is not so impressive than
32 -> just 2.
> Everything is not that bad. In compressed form these is only about 260K.
Then, we can try to do the best (just 2, common for all lang).
> > - to commit the source of libutf8 as utilities/libutf8 in cvs for b-f
> > This is required to use the utf8 on bterm.
> Agree.
Thanks. If there are no objections, please add them into utilities/libutf8.
> re patched slang and newt. I do think that a message should be sufficient at
> the moment! Again, putting anything into CVS like patches, patched versions of
> libraries is viable only if lc goes mainstream.
I wish to consult the maintainers of slang and newt, about the handling
of special version for utf8 support.
> As for fonts, I do not know. If XFree86 v4.0 uses these fonts, then we could
> provide a temporary package till XFree86 is in distribution... I believe this
> will a convenient way for everybody. To my mind, shipping bogl fonts as a
> separate package is not very nice idea, as these are of use only for
> boot-floppies (and related programs working only during installation!). And
> font reduction is going to be used (I think it is), then such a package will be
> of no use at all.
Then we should prepare the creation of xfonts-utf8, and we should
consult Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org>, the maintainer of X.
I am not so sure that we should have xfonts-utf8, so this mail is
not sent to him. But if you think we should, then please contact
Branden. I think that font only package would not hurt anything
in the distribution, but the communication should be done.
> re problems with C.po. I thought I made en.trm a special case. I'll check.
Thanks.
--
Taketoshi Sano: <sano@debian.org>,<sano@debian.or.jp>,<kgh12351@nifty.ne.jp>
Reply to: