Re: Tcl-ja/Tk-ja (Re: this all this xxx-jp nonsense (was: Re: ITP: grep-ja))
Ryuichi Arafune <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> From: Steve Dunham <email@example.com>
> Subject: Re: Tcl-ja/Tk-ja (Re: this all this xxx-jp nonsense (was: Re: ITP: grep-ja))
> Date: 03 Sep 1999 10:12:20 -0400
> Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> dunham> If the -ja patches don't break any non-japanese stuff, then shouldn't
> dunham> they be added to the main tcl/tk packages? We really shouldn't have
> dunham> any -ja packages, unless absolutely necessary.
> What is the "absolutely necessary" condition. Give examples
"Absolutely necessary" means that the main package would break for if
the japanese patches were added. In that case, a seperate -ja, -cjk,
or -xim package should be made (where the name depends on what the
> I seem that you mean "Japanese person must not use Debian".
> There is no other interpretation to be placed on it.
I definitely don't mean that. I mean that a person shouldn't be
required to install a different version of a package to get japanese
support if it is possible to add that suppport to the main package.
> As I say repeatedly, True I18N is more difficult than you think.
> (I think Emacs is the nearest posion, but It is insufficient yet.)
> # We know that our efforts are needed much more, of course.
I'm familiar with the issues (as they pertain to japanese) - it is
indeed tricky. But if we have a patch for XIM, and it doesn't break
anything else, then it should be added to the main package.
> Ultimate goal may indicate that Debian does not have any *-ja package.
> But this is very nonsense idea at least for a long time from now.
In this specific case (tcl/tk) I was asking if there was any reason
why the patches couldn't be added to the main tcl/tk packages rather
than make new packages.