Bug 1729992 - Can Supplements for langpacks be moved to langpacks.spec?
Summary: Can Supplements for langpacks be moved to langpacks.spec?
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: glibc
Version: 31
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Carlos O'Donell
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-07-15 14:01 UTC by Parag Nemade
Modified: 2019-09-16 10:57 UTC (History)
11 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Parag Nemade 2019-07-15 14:01:22 UTC
Description of problem:

As part of F31 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Langpacks-core Change implementation, I was thinking if glibc.spec can drop
Supplements: (glibc and (]]..suppl..[[))
and langpacks.spec to have
Requires: glibc-langpack-<locale>

I see glibc langpack packages (198 on F30) are more whereas not every such have corresponding langpacks meta-packages (88 on F30)

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
latest glibc package

How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:
glibc.spec is supplementing for langpacks-<locale>

Expected results:
langpacks.spec to requires glibc langpack packages

Additional info:

Comment 1 Parag Nemade 2019-07-24 12:57:09 UTC
Can I request glibc package maintainers to provide their feedback on this request?

Comment 2 Florian Weimer 2019-07-24 13:13:12 UTC
I do not have an opinion on this change.

Would this change here help with bug 1380069 as well?  Would it make that fix more difficult.

Comment 3 Parag Nemade 2019-07-26 09:42:16 UTC
Well, I tried to test this in my copr with new langpacks-2.0 package but looks like glibc-langpack-<langcode> is not getting removed. Will check more on this.

Comment 4 Jens Petersen 2019-07-30 07:02:05 UTC
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #2)
> I do not have an opinion on this change.

To add a little more: further glibc doesn't actually know what meta langpacks packages exist in Fedora.
So in this sense it makes more sense to carry the information in langpacks rather than glibc itself.

> Would this change here help with bug 1380069 as well?  Would it make that
> fix more difficult.

I don't think it has any affect on that, but maybe 'glibc-langpack' can be simplified anyway.

Comment 5 Ben Cotton 2019-08-13 18:52:36 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 31 development cycle.
Changing version to 31.

Comment 6 Jens Petersen 2019-09-16 10:57:19 UTC
We really need changes for langpacks-core-* at the very least for F31.

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glibc/pull-request/15
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/glibc/pull-request/16

I would still rather we moved this completely to langpacks since that is more consistent.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.