Re: Why isn't console-cyrillic part of console-data?
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 12:49:04PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> The difference is only in the
> content of some data files, and how these are applied to the linux
> console. I do not understand why it has to be a separate package.
The name of this package chosen by the upstream is
console-tools-cyrillic. This is because he wanted to include the
contents of console-tools-cyrillic in the common package console-tools.
As far as I know the responce by the old maintainer of this package was
that console-data has to be as small size as possible and
console-tools-cyrillic contains quiet a big collection of fonts (now it
is even bigger).
Currently the main difference between the setup of the console between
console-cyrillic and console-toos is the keyboard setup. Console-tools
uses static keyboard definitions located in /usr/share/keymaps. This
makes impossible for the users to choose for example which keys should
be used in order to switch between Cyrillic and Latin. On the other
hand in console-cyrillic the keyboard definitions are dinamicaly
generated acording to the preferences of the user.
Another difference (that made console-cyrillyc the best choice for the
Cyrillic languages) are the debconf questions during the installation.
> I actually suspect the problems facing each such configuration setup is
> so close to each other that it make sense to have only one package.
> One package would make sure the solutions to these problems are more
> easily shared.
I agree. There is no reason why console-cyrillic is not used for
Arabic, Greek and Hebrew even now - this would give better support for
these languages. For the Latin languages the benefit will be smaller -
they will become independent from the coding system - UTF-8 or 8-bit.
Anton Zinoviev
Reply to: