i18n-discuss@opensolaris.org
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [i18n-discuss] Review Kickoff : Localeadm Redesign One-pager

Subject: Re: [i18n-discuss] Review Kickoff : Localeadm Redesign One-pager
From: Jan Trejbal
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:53:17 +0200
Hello Harry,
let me add comments to Peter's email.
Peter, thank you for helping us with localeadm, your experience is very 
useful for us in this project!

Peter.Nugent@xxxxxxx wrote:
> hi Harry
> thanks for your great questions , pls see my replies in line
> (pls note Jan is the sponsor BTW)
> 
> 
> Harry Fu wrote:
>> Hi, Damien and Peter:
>>
>> I have 2 questions regarding the design:
>> 1) Is there a way that a user could know --
>>    * what packages are installed on the system for a specific locale?
>>    * what locales are installed on the system for a specific package?
>> I am asking it because it seems that the design relies on SUNW_LOC 
>> field provided by package owners very much. However, I think it is 
>> likely that some human mistakes may introduce bugs that some packages 
>> are missed. Then when a user chooses to add a region, those packages 
>> are not installed. In that case, is there a way to identify the issue 
>> without extensive testing?
>>
> localeadm relies on SUNW_LOC being correct and up to date and I feel 
> this is the correc tthing to do. If it is not then that is a bug in the 
> relevant pkginfo file that needs to be fixed.
> Damien did a comparison recently of packages per geo/locale in the 
> current localeadm config file and locales listed in SUNW_LOC and AFAIK 
> they were pretty close and he filed 1 or 2 bugs against the relevant 
> pkgs where there were missing entries in SUNW_LOC. I don't recall what 
> the status is but Damien can tell us more. Thanks for reminding us about 
> this issue.

Just a comment about verification of SUNW_LOC data. The onepager 
mentions an automated test which will compare new and old localeadm 
package lists.
So, an extensive manual testing will not be necessary here.


> 
> 
>>
>> 2) Can we drop the feature of prompting user with the CD# ?
>> Why not just scan CDs from #1 to #N just as the initial installation 
>> does?
>> It is clumsy, but can save us from the complicated logics, and hence 
>> reduce the chances that introduce defects. After all, the number of 
>> users using CDs will decline and most of them will not add/remove 
>> regions frequently.
>>
> I think this would be a loss of functionality that users would not like. 
> AFAIK for some locales only 3 CDs are required so they might not be 
> happy about having to insert them all. I remember seeing a survey a 
> while back (of solaris downloads I think) that showed that there are 
> still quite a lot of people using CDs so this issue may not go away as 
> quickly as we wish.
> However, you make a good point about the trade off of functionality vs. 
> complexity. So maybe Damien or Jan can tell us how much effort and 
> complexity is required to implement the CD logic.

I dont's think the logic for prompting CD# is complicated. When adding 
locales/regions, you have a list of packages to be installed. The list 
also includes CD# for every package. So, you just sort the list 
according to CD# and ask user to input them sequentially.

This is how I see it, but Damien is expert here. He may know about other 
things which must be done.
Let's wait for Damien (he's back from holidays next Tuesday).


>>
>> Regards,
>> Harry
>>
>> Damien Donlon wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>> Please interpret the attached email as the official kick-off email for
>>> GTO review. Jan Trejbal is the sponsor of the project and is also
>>> collaborating on it. He is on holidays until next week but would like to
>>> start gathering review comments this week.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Damien
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Subject:
>>> Localeadm Redesign One-pager Updated
>>> From:
>>> Damien Donlon <Damien.Donlon@xxxxxxx>
>>> Date:
>>> Sat, 21 Jul 2007 13:35:04 +0100
>>> To:
>>> gto@xxxxxxx, Wenling.Chen@xxxxxxx
>>>
>>> To:
>>> gto@xxxxxxx, Wenling.Chen@xxxxxxx
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>> Attached is a revised one-pager for the redesign of localeadm created by
>>> myself and Jan Trejbal. GTO procedural details :
>>>
>>> Sponsor : Jan Trejbal
>>> Approval mechanism/voting: explicit vote
>>> Auto-approval after 1 week Deadline for comments/discussion: 1 week. 
>>> It can be extended for one
>>> more week if needed.
>>>
>>> Background
>>> ------------
>>> The one-pager is an extensive reworking of the original design based on
>>> discussions with the Caiman installer team who are anxious to be
>>> provided by G11n with a new API for identifying installable content
>>> during install.
>>> Unfortunately, the original redesign was unacceptable to the Installer
>>> team because it called for the use of .virtual_package_toc and other
>>> interfaces in the install image. They own these interfaces and could not
>>> guarantee their stability for future Solaris releases and requested that
>>> we help them in providing a new interface.  We have flagged 
>>> particular areas on which we would like comments with
>>> the string "GTO".
>>>
>>> Additional documents references in the one-pager :
>>>
>>> Example use cases and pseudo-code :
>>> http://qa.central/localeadm/use_cases/localeadm-functions.html
>>>
>>> Latest version of API header file at:
>>> http://qa.central/localeadm/c/img_g11n_info.h
>>>
>>> localeadm.Xml sample at:
>>> http://qa.central/localeadm/xml/LocaleadmXML.xml
>>>
>>> Looking forward to your feedback!
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Damien
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> i18n-discuss mailing list
>>> i18n-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/i18n-discuss
>>
_______________________________________________
i18n-discuss mailing list
i18n-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/i18n-discuss

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>