This might be like beating the dead horse, but I just need to write it down.

The discussion in that issue was funny. There was a statement that langpacks
should not contain dictionaries, which is IMHO not OK.
Langpack is a small package that makes en-US version (or some other language
version) behave like that language full-package. So when a langpack is
installed it MUST contain all dictionaries that a full-package in that
language contains. That is the expected behaviour.

If not, then also en-US dictionary should be ommited from all langpacks and
all full language packs - user could install one if needed. But such
thinking is really not user friendly.

There is of course the other possibility - that the lang-pack installer
would offer a list of predefined dictionaries to install and the user would
have a choice to disable some of them. But again the installer should
contain and be able to install them.

Lp, m.

2010/2/21 Mechtilde <[email protected]>

> Hello,
>
> Goran Rakic schrieb:
> > Why do released language packs for 3.2 do not contain dictionaries and
> > dictionary packs have to be installed manually?
> >
> > I have tested sr, sh and de language packs, neither of them add new
> > dictionary over English install set on Microsoft Windows XP. Was this
> > the same for previous releases too?
> >
> > Is it possible to add same dictionaries as in full install sets to the
> > language packs for future releases? Should I file a bug against
> > setup_native or some other project?
>
>
> For the Germanophone there is already issue
> http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=92147
>
> Regards
>
> Mechtilde
>
>
> --
> Dipl. Ing. Mechtilde Stehmann
> ## http://de.openoffice.org
> ## Ansprechpartnerin für die deutschsprachige QA
> ## Freie Office-Suite für Linux, Mac, Windows, Solaris
> ## Meine Seite http://www.mechtilde.de
> ## PGP encryption welcome! Key-ID: 0x53B3892B
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>

Reply via email to