retitle 557604 dictionaries-common: Please remove no longer needed mozilla
symlinks
thanks
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 01:46:42PM +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> All that is totally unclear, and my bug report may not be clear itself.
>
> My concern is about the xx-XX -> xx_XX symlinks. I don't know where they
> come from, but here is the 2 problems we have with them:
>
> - the xx-XX form is currently the only one recognized by mozilla to
> translate the language code into a user readable language name.
> the xx_XX form is still recognized, but doesn't display a user
> readable name. This is what is going to be fixed soon.
>
> - Both the xx-XX and the xx_XX form are currently recognized.
> Currently, this means that there are 2 entries for each dictionary,
> one in the xx_XX form, and one with a user readable form.
> With the fix for the first issue, both will use the user readable
> form.
>
> As it seems these xx-XX symlinks are only used by mozilla, please just
> remove them now. We can pretty much live without them for a while. That
> will only mean the user-friendly name won't be shown in unfixed
> applications, which is not something that should need to bother with a
> transition plan, especially considering the dictionary location itself
> is changing too.
Hi, Mike,
Thanks for the clarification, I thought you were speaking only about new
location transition and about the Mozilla compatibility symlinks from the
old location to the new one. My apologies, should have read more carefully
instead of reacting at a first glance.
I was aware of current entries duplication problem, but had no idea that
the reason that made it appear will soon vanish.
The original reason for the xx-XX -> xx_XX is that there was a time where
Mozilla did not read anything but xx-XX (ancient times, probably when
some myspell code was included inside Mozilla itself). That has remained
for years because as you point, the Mozilla {xx-YY,xx}->Languages mapping
tables only supported that format, although both forms were displayed.
I will look more carefully at this. Is clear that for sid no symlinks should
appear, but in backwards compatibility mode, we may keep them in the old dir
(they should be the only contents in the old dir, so no duplication).
I will also modify documentation for this issue.
I need to fine tune some things, so dicts are installed always in the xx_XX
form, but I expect to change things during this week.
Cheers,
--
Agustin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
