Re: base-config localisation
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 07:26:26PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include <hallo.h>
> Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote on Mon Feb 04, 2002 um 12:52:20PM:
>
> > a) there is not a generic mapping from languages to locales since a single
> > language might have more than one locale. sample: Spanish= es_AR
> > es_ES@euro...
>
> I know, that is why I called it PROBLEM. OTOH we could just take the
> language which is used on boot-floppies, choose a _XX part which is
> similar to BFs config and would satisfy most people _for the initial
> setup_ and be fine with it.
IMHO it's better for boot-floppies to just dump the language to a
file. Locales could use this information on post-installation (if
available) and convert it to the appropiate xx_XX format.
It's much better this way since then boot-floppies does not have
to know about locales.... and 'locales' can have a 1:N mapping. It can
say, via debconf: You have the following language, which corresponds to
these locales... which one is yours? (and give information on how es_ES
and es_AR differ for example)
>
> > b) A system-wide config file can be used by other programs to setup
> > information that might be localised upon installation. Sample: Apache's
>
> That was not my point. Feel free do discuss this in another thread. I
> would like to see helpers for the base-config i18n implementation RIGHT
> NOW. We have the components, we should just take them together in a
> reasonable way. You can talk about i18n for system services when Woody
> have been released.
>
Ok. But please do it in a way that can be useful later on. I still
think that dumping the language the user selected on installation is a
better option:
a.- boot-floppies can be easily modified to do this
b.- localisation is kept to where it should be (locales generation)
Javi
Reply to: