On (12/24/2009 01:54 AM), Brian Cameron-san wrote: > I just updated our build of GDM in the gnome-2-28 branch and svn head, > so that the following line is uncommented out of the > /usr/share/gdm/locale.alias file delivered with SUNWgnome-display-mgr > packages: > > Unspecified C,POSIX
OK, I see. Probably it might be good in Solaris to show C locale by default. I think the point change will be a branding change in Solaris likes using sed after the current patch is upstreamed. Different opinion: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=302164 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89452 You could run applications after you log in the session. e.g. 'env LANG=C ./application' Personally I hope Solaris also will remove C locale on GUI by default in near feature. > > I also modified the code so it displays "Unspecified" in the GUI and > does not display "Latin alphabet". While "Unspecified" is perhaps not > the best term, I think "Latin alphabet" is just confusing. It is > configurable, so users can edit the /usr/share/gdm/locale.alias file to > specify a different term if desired. The latest patch removes "Latin alphabet" in get_language() and modifier_code in gdm_get_language_from_name(): https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=536387#c40 As you may notice, currently the language name is not customizable but hard-code "Unspecified" to follow GDM2.20. The customizable feature may have a problem because when the locale is not C/POSIX, probably I think it's better to decide the language name with iso-codes module not to show the different language names in similar locales; e.g. ja_JP.UTF-8 by default and ja_JP.eucJP in locale.alias. FYI, On the other hand, currently somebody likes to show different language names in modifier locales. https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=602965 My suggestion was to deliver a .mo file of iso-codes to modify the language names. > > I think these changes improve things, since it is useful to be able > to select this choice. Obviously since this patch is not yet upstream > in the GDM code, the way this works may change a bit over the next > releases. Yes, probably the customize feature in the internal patch is not a big problem at the moment. I think I will port the feature to trunk, that can show locale names besides language names in OpenSolaris GDM 2.20, after the current patch is upstreamed and probably I think the new feature also can resolve this issue. > > Takao, any idea when this patch will go upstream? It would be really > nice if it could get done by GNOME 2.30 if possible. This is a > cumbersome patch to maintain. Thanks for maintaining the patch. I agree with the time frame. It might depends on the code reviews. I'll ask Ray Strode the time frame. fujiwara > > Brian > > >>> "Unspecified" and "Latin alphabet" are not language names, either. Why >>> not just use "C/POSIX"? >> >> My understanding is "Unspecified" means unspecified language. >> As I noted above, "C/POSIX" is not a language name but a locale name. >> >>> I think for normal English speaking users they would be fine with >>> en_US.UTF-8 and won't bother to look for "C/POSIX". "C/POSIX" only has >>> meaning to those who know it -- such as developers. I think for those >>> people "C/POSIX" is much straightforward than other expressions. >> >> However some people(not me) doesn't like to show "C/POSIX" since it's >> not a language name and they think showing "C/POSIX" confuse users, >> which language it indicates. >> If you compare MS-Windows, it doesn't show any locale names but language >> names only. >> So currently it's "C/POSIX" is not a good solution because somebody >> might like but others don't. >> >> Actually I have seen several bugs about this on the upstream bugzilla. >> My suggestion "Latin alphabet" was a compromise idea for C vs >> Unspecified but it's still not good. >> Currently the recommendation is en_US.UTF-8 for end users and C would be >> a workaround for admins/developers/testers and "Unspecified" could be >> used for the purpose. >> So probably we might like to suggest en_US.UTF-8 at first and if it >> doesn't meet the usage, "Unspecified" would be shown as a workaround. >> >> If you'd like the furthermore discussions, the following bug might be >> good: >> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=592293 >> >> Thanks, >> fujiwara >> >>> >>> Just my two cents. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Harry Fu >> >
