[Fedora-packaging] file-not-utf8 complaints

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Mon Jun 2 22:52:05 UTC 2008

Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 01:18:02PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:

>> I could go either way on this but lean towards this should be utf-8.  
>> ShiftJS, Big5, etc have benefits over UTF-8 and the people who use those  
>> are the consumers of this file.  OTOH, for Fedora to truly support the  
>> UTF-8 locale out of the box, these kinds of files (which don't specify  
>> an encoding and aren't used by the program) have to be UTF-8.  How can  
>> we ship with a UTF-8 locale by default knowing that the README.cn isn't  
>> readable by people who stick with our default?
> Once again I think that it really depends on the package user community.
> I don't know anything about asian encodings, but if the packager thinks
> that users anticipate a file encoded in Big5 he could leave it in the
> original encoding.
I think you're wrong on this.  We ship with a default locale choice that 
has utf-8 as the encoding.  If the user is changing the default, they 
can't expect things to work.  More importantly, if the user is leaving 
the defaults alone, they should be able to expect things to work.  The 
choice of UTF-8 encoding for a locale is something we do at the 
distribution level.  Everything we ship in the distribution should work 
with that choice.

For files that do not specify this encoding, there's no way to satisfy 
that requirement except to ship them as UTF-8.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/attachments/20080602/851c8298/attachment.sig>

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list