Summary of the 2008-03-11 Packaging Committee meeting

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 01:00 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> > Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> >> Le Mer 12 mars 2008 12:29, Dmitry Butskoy a écrit :
> >>  
> >>> Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:

> >> An ascii-only alias is provided in the spec file
> >>
> >>   
> > 
> > You mean "Provides: foobar" ?
> > 
> > I mean I cannot operate with such a filename (with foreign sumbols) in 
> > my local copy of the Fedora repository. As well as a sysadmin of the 
> > primary Fedora sites cannot operate with such filenames, when people 
> > from "another World" (non Latin1 only) start to add their native-named 
> > packages into the common Fedora repo.
> > 
> > (Surely if you are not going to deprecate all non-latin language for 
> > this usage of unicode).
> > 
> You already have this problem because filenames within a package can 
> legally be any unicode character.
Yes, that's another leak in the FPG. 

We should extend the FPG to ban all non unicode chars on all
rpm-file-names, not only to package names (== %name).

> > I prefer "Provides(de): foobar" etc., as for "Summary" or 
> > "%description". Maybe even:
> > 
> >> Name: foobar
> >> Name(de): foobar
> >> Name(ru): фубар
> > 
> > but the RPM filename should be named by the primary "C locale" name.
> > 
> > IMO all ideas here should follow the spirit of gettext(3) (LANG, 
> > LC_MESSAGES, etc.etc.etc)
> > 
> This is a terrible idea.
ACK.

> A package name is a proper name.  Localizing that in the spec file is 
> like translating Ivan-John-Juan-Johann-Jean in a passport.
ACK. The core of this issue is having _rpm-file-names_ which are
constant and deterministic everywhere (Independent of the locale and
tools being used).

Ralf