On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 05:06:21AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 06:29:43PM +1000, Roger So wrote: > > A "universal OS" (which we claim on our website), with dysfunctional > > support for the language which the user speaks natively, even during the > > installation phase, is insane IMHO. > > The OS is operational without locales. Albeit, it lacks certain > functionality that a great deal of users need. Of course, most people > use apache, but that doesn't mean it should be included with our base > install, does it?
Perhaps I was being a bit harsh; sorry. However a lot of languages don't display properly without locales, and that's important: without it a user who's not reasonably proficient in English would not even touch the system, let alone completing the base install and then "apt-get install apache". > Installing locales from an interface that asks questions in english is > somewhat broken, IMO. The language support needs to start with the > installer, not locales. If the installer is run under a different > language, then I don't see why debootstrap can't detect that and decide > to add locales to the package list. I don't think it should be "by > default", is my point. This I agree with. > Anyway, the whole point of Santiago asking this is because he thinks > that the locale.gen file should be copied over at postinst, instead of > being a conffile. This conversation has little to do with that. Ah, I see. It wasn't obvious from the original posting ... (after I re-read it again, it is though. Maybe I'm just having a bad day...) Back to the original question: I'd say that most non-English speaking users would customise locale.gen and uncomment maybe 1-3 locales. However what are the disadvantages of it being a conffile? Roger
