LO on Ubuntu

l10n
#1

Right... alle Jahre wieder, as the Germans like to sing at Christmas. Ran an Ubuntu upgrade (with the system language being Scottish Gaelic and above English in the list of language choices in Ubuntu). Installs LO 4.1.3.2 and suddenly I'm back to having LO in English (USA) and Gaelic has gone completely.

Anyone have any ideas of what went pearshaped and whether it's a LO problem (beyond the continuing lack of a decent post-installation language selection option) or an Ubuntu problem in case I need to file a bug?

Most fixes on the web just talk about setting the system-wide language settings.

Cheers

Michael

#2

Right... alle Jahre wieder, as the Germans like to sing at Christmas. Ran an
Ubuntu upgrade (with the system language being Scottish Gaelic and above
English in the list of language choices in Ubuntu). Installs LO 4.1.3.2 and
suddenly I'm back to having LO in English (USA) and Gaelic has gone
completely.

Hmm...

Anyone have any ideas of what went pearshaped and whether it's a LO problem
(beyond the continuing lack of a decent post-installation language selection
option) or an Ubuntu problem in case I need to file a bug?

It sounds like you installed LibreOffice via an Ubuntu repo, in which
case this sounds like it would be an upgrade-related bug for
Canonical/Ubuntu to handle.

Cheers,
--R

#3

LibreOffice versions from the PPA only have 12 l10ns as there is no space for
more on those builders. This should be solved soon with:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/101094190333184858950/posts/Uum7YEvSDBT

Best,

Bjoern

#4

What changed? I used to get Gaelic via the PPA as far as I remember. Did they really axe all but 12 locales *recently* in that case?

Michael

17/01/2014 09:30, sgrìobh Bjoern Michaelsen:

#5

Hi,

What changed? I used to get Gaelic via the PPA as far as I remember.

You remember wrong then.

Did they really axe all but 12 locales *recently* in that case?

Not recently. Its been like that for a while. And it was not "them" it was me.
:wink:

I doubt though that having a source package that wouldnt finish to build in the
PPA would have made you happier.

Best, Bjoern

#6

Hi Björn, *,

> > Installs LO 4.1.3.2 and suddenly I'm back to having LO in English
(USA) and
> > Gaelic has gone completely.

LibreOffice versions from the PPA only have 12 l10ns as there is no space
for
more on those builders. This should be solved soon with:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/101094190333184858950/posts/Uum7YEvSDBT

I haven't seen any announcement on this subject, so -- any news? :slight_smile:

Best regards,
Mihkel
Estonian l10n team

#7

Hi Mihkel,

> https://plus.google.com/u/0/101094190333184858950/posts/Uum7YEvSDBT
I haven't seen any announcement on this subject, so -- any news? :slight_smile:

Its solved with LibreOffice 4.2.0 both in the PPAs and in the archive. We will
build 4.2.x with full 10n in the PPAs too. See for example:

https://launchpad.net/~libreoffice/+archive/ppa/+sourcepub/3894742/+listing-archive-extra

Best,

Bjoern

#8

Oh, awesome :slight_smile:
Thanks!

#9

Why is our locale (gd) missing?

Michael

12/02/2014 16:34, sgrìobh Bjoern Michaelsen:

#10

Ubuntu essentially ships the same l10n as debian does:

http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-openoffice/libreoffice.git;a=blob;f=rules;h=75ccdc460060b46130c47d1fe8439a3eb02e64bc;hb=be19aeb50a1186ed24b01537453a3beb0d917f1d#l795

Usually both of us consider shipping a locale when it is reasonably complete.
As gd seems reasonably complete:

https://translations.documentfoundation.org/gd/

we might add it to the shipped locales.

@Rene: Any objections here?

Best,

Bjoern

#11

12/02/2014 21:26, sgrìobh Bjoern Michaelsen:

Ubuntu essentially ships the same l10n as debian does:

  http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-openoffice/libreoffice.git;a=blob;f=rules;h=75ccdc460060b46130c47d1fe8439a3eb02e64bc;hb=be19aeb50a1186ed24b01537453a3beb0d917f1d#l795

Usually both of us consider shipping a locale when it is reasonably complete.
As gd seems reasonably complete:

Errr... I should think so too, the UI has been at 100% for years...

  https://translations.documentfoundation.org/gd/

we might add it to the shipped locales.

Might? Sorry, I realise you're clearly being helpful (no sarcasm implied or intended) but if the 'might' implies 'we might not' then I'm a bit perplexed. Either there is a cutoff (something in the 75% regions seems reasonable) or there isn't. Since when did OS software get so linguisticall restrictive? Especially since there seems to be close to zero quality control in terms of what Ubuntu pushes out in terms of its OS localizations.

Michael

#12

Hi,

Might? Sorry, I realise you're clearly being helpful (no sarcasm
implied or intended) but if the 'might' implies 'we might not' then
I'm a bit perplexed. Either there is a cutoff (something in the 75%
regions seems reasonable) or there isn't. Since when did OS software
get so linguisticall restrictive? Especially since there seems to be
close to zero quality control in terms of what Ubuntu pushes out in
terms of its OS localizations.

There is not reason to get aggressive here. :wink:

The situation is as follows:
- I would rather not diff from Debian to much on the set of l10ns, there is
  little reason for a good l10n not also being build on Debian too
- Im not the Debian maintainer -- thats really Renes call

So Id like to see Renes reply and only if he denies it for some reason that I
consider unjustified, I will do a Diff to Debian. I consider that unlikely as
Rene is quite a reasonable guy(*).

Best,

Bjoern

(*) However, it _might_ be that Rene would prefer a bug report on Debian over
    rambling on a mailing list. Just like I do usually FWIW -- it makes it
    easier to keep track of the multitude the little things to take care of.

#13

Hey Bjoern,

12/02/2014 22:19, sgrìobh Bjoern Michaelsen:

There is not reason to get aggressive here.:wink:

I was mostly exasperated, sorry if it came over aggressive, it wasn't meant to be.

The decentral nature of open source software may be part of its strength but for localizers, especially those of a small to tiny locale and/or team with loads of translation expertise but little in the way of developer skills, it's like trying to navigate a heavily mined swamp semi-blindfolded in deep fog. You start off with the (reasonable to my mind) assumption that you translate and then 'stuff happens'. So you knuckle down and translate.

But you then suddently find out everything is not as it seems. Like finding out the Launchpad doesn't coordinate with upstream or that it's not possible to purge bad translations or globally block rogue translators. That you don't just have to translate the WordPress po files but also have to build your own packs. Or in this case here, that assuming that since LO is bundled with Ubuntu, that it would also come up in the language of choice - and once we got past that point, that even a 100% complete localization does not necessarily result in an automatic inclusion because you are supposed to know (how, I'm not sure) you have to coordinate with Debian somehow. How many other locales are similarly excluded I wonder?

In a sense I'm not surprised we get so many dormant projects for lesser-resourced locales - or indeed a complete lack of l10n efforts from certain corners. The lack of l10n coordination is a real problem and with the proliferation of platforms, it's probably going to get a lot worse. That's why I was kind of throwing my hands up in despair.

Michael

#14

I apologise for lapsing into Sumerian :wink: but - how can you file a bug on something you don't realise you have to file a bug on?

Michael

13/02/2014 12:24, sgrìobh Bjoern Michaelsen:

#15

At a casual glance, Burmese and Sidama are in the same position - hard to tell, since nobody has said what the cutoff % actually is

Michael

13/02/2014 12:24, sgrìobh Bjoern Michaelsen:

#16

I actually wonder why the Debian rules file needs to explicitly list
the languages to be built, was it so that en-US is the first one as the
comment above it says, or are there other reasons?

Regards,
Khaled

#17

Hi,

I actually wonder why the Debian rules file needs to explicitly list
the languages to be built, was it so that en-US is the first one as the
comment above it says, or are there other reasons?

1) en-US has to be the first. at least had to be in the past for configure
to actualy do the right thing.

2) we want tzpo have a choice what to include and what not. that means not ALL
languages which mightz be too less transalted ans increase the build time/uplload time/...

3) we need a list for packaging it up, do the package descriptions from etc.
We d*doÜ have custom rules which need to iterate over all the languages and
do stuff. (And we have rules to fix upstream brokeness up and to merge ca and ca_XV. Wouldn't be possible or would be more complex with ALL there.

4) historical reasons :slight_smile:

Regards,

Rene

P.S.: Why on earth is libreoffice-l10n even in CC?

#18

Hiya

The upcoming Ubuntu release reminded me of this - did this get resolved in the end?

Michael

13/02/2014 07:04, sgrìobh Rene Engelhard:

#19

Hi,

   The upcoming Ubuntu release reminded me of this - did this get resolved in
   the end?

What would be if you actually checked yourself?

http://packages.debian.org/libreoffice-l10n-gd
http://packages.ubuntu.com/libreoffice-l10n-gd

Regards,

#20

Rene,

In all the time I've been localizing, there wasn't a visible hint anywhere that I need to check *debian* to make sure that LO will be available on *ubuntu* in our language. <slaps forehead, silly me>. Add to that that I'm a localizer first and foremost and couldn't program a dot dancing across the screen to save my life, I wouldn't dream of assuming to know where to look to make sure the right switches have been flicked. I could give you a good dozen examples where I made an assumption like that which turned out to be *sensible* but not correct. Like the assumption Launchpad communicates with upstream projects...

So while I appreciate that it's a good thing if people try finding the answer to obvious questions, I would urge a little bit more forbearance towards non-developer localizers asking about technical stuff.

Coming to the links... thank you. But what do they mean?

    Exact hits

      Package libreoffice-l10n-gd

  * jessie (testing)
    <https://packages.debian.org/jessie/libreoffice-l10n-gd>
    (localization): office productivity suite -- Scottish_gaelic
    language package
    1:4.1.5-2: all
  * sid (unstable)
    <https://packages.debian.org/sid/libreoffice-l10n-gd>
    (localization): office productivity suite -- Scottish_gaelic
    language package
    1:4.1.5-2: all
  * experimental (rc-buggy)
    <https://packages.debian.org/experimental/libreoffice-l10n-gd>
    (localization): office productivity suite -- Scottish_gaelic
    language package
    1:4.2.3~rc3-1: all

I honestly haven't got the faintest idea if that means 'it'll be there' or 'it's already there' or 'you need to fix stuff' cause all I can see is 'testing, unstable, buggy'

Michael

09/04/2014 06:34, sgrìobh Rene Engelhard: