https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=161255
--- Comment #13 from Mike Kaganski <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #12) > if I download a localized version from the libreoffice.org website, shouldn't > that locale trump whatever LO determines as the OS locale? There are no "localized versions" of LibreOffice. There is the program, and there are UI packages, that may be added on top of the program, in any number. The closest to a "localized version" is a set of the main program plus a single UI package. But note, that the most used packages - the Windows MSI, and the macOS DMG - are all-in-one packages, including *all* UI packaged bundled; while the Linux packages are actually not expected to be widely used at all, according to the philosophy of the project, which expects Linux distros to prepare own packages in their repositories, with own installation scripts taking care of UI packages. The set of individual sub-packages (both inside the main program RPM/DEB, and the individual UI packs) reflect the Linux distros' maintainers' idea of modularity, allowing those distro maintainers to only install subset of the program to suit some requirements - e.g., license (like PDF import depending on GPL), or library dependence (for different VCL backends), or bloat (like unneeded UI packs). Thus, Linux people installing LibreOffice from homepage are likely to have a somewhat incorrect idea of the intended UX - they have to manually do what their distro maintainer would normally automatize for them. And then: the UI package is *the UI*, but has nothing to do with *locale*. It is OK to have a Russian UI, but Chinese locale. And the locale set doesn't depend on any UI package; it is built into the core. The logic of automatic locale choice is also built into the core; it depends on your OS, not on the installed UI packages. So yes, please do file bugs for what specifically doesn't work. The bottom line of my previous comments was: what you asked for was already implemented - and if it doesn't work as intended, it is not a missing functionality, but a bug. And the point 4 in comment 1 is meant to tell, that there might be shortcomings in the implemented logic itself - then it needs to be discovered, what is not good in that logic, and improved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
