PDA

View Full Version : Firefox Language Packs - Why all of them?



StephenH
22nd December 2008, 07:36 PM
Why is it that Firefox wants to install every single available language pack every time it updates? Why can't I delete the ones (most of them) that I don't want and will never use and have it stay that way?

Is there a simple way to go in and delete the language packs other than as su going in and removing them one at a time from the add-ons menu (or disabling them as the regular user)?

Hlingler
22nd December 2008, 08:04 PM
Why is it that Firefox wants to install every single available language pack every time it updates? Why can't I delete the ones (most of them) that I don't want and will never use and have it stay that way?Only root user can delete system-wide add-ons that are installed in system protected folders. Start FF as root and you can remove them, OR...
Is there a simple way to go in and delete the language packs other than as su going in and removing them one at a time from the add-ons menu (or disabling them as the regular user)?Yes: search for my username and keywords: firefox language; you'll find a long thread where Remi Collet gives the solution (add an RPM macro to filter them out), works for me. Only applies to RPMs installed after the macro is made. Will cause Presto DRPMs to fail due to altered package files.

V

EDIT: P.S. As to why they're included in the first place, it seems rather obvious: for the many non-english speaking users of Fedora.

pwca
22nd December 2008, 08:33 PM
Not just the many non-english speakers either. It's for anyone who also has a language translation add-on to convert the web-page they're looking at. Without the language pack installed the add-on doesn't work because there's no language to translate as the text will not appear.

Oh, btw,

a) Firefox will not run any faster by removing the language packs,
b) Even removing all but your own language you've only deleted ~12Mb of files from your system. Hardly going to speed up your system or make room for very much.

StephenH
22nd December 2008, 08:38 PM
Only root user can delete system-wide add-ons that are installed in system protected folders. Start FF as root and you can remove them, OR...Yes: search for my username and keywords: firefox language; you'll find a long thread where Remi Collet gives the solution (add an RPM macro to filter them out), works for me. Only applies to RPMs installed after the macro is made. Will cause Presto DRPMs to fail due to altered package files.

V

EDIT: P.S. As to why they're included in the first place, it seems rather obvious: for the many non-english speaking users of Fedora.

Thanks for the link tip. I found it. I just need to find what codes equate to each language. I tried a Google search, but wasn't successful.

I also saw pwca's post about language translation add-ons not working unless the language packs are installed. I'll have to think about if I want to delete the languages after all. I don't encounter many non-English language web pages in my normal dealing so translation isn't something I normally need.

Hlingler
22nd December 2008, 08:55 PM
Thanks for the link tip. I found it. I just need to find what codes equate to each language. I tried a Google search, but wasn't successful.See my comment in the other thread.

rpm -ql firefox will list the folders/files, and you can tell from that list what the codes are.

V

Seve
22nd December 2008, 09:04 PM
Here is a list as well from an actual language pack.


af.xpi ACCEPTED
ar.xpi ACCEPTED
be.xpi ACCEPTED
bn-IN.xpi ACCEPTED
ca.xpi ACCEPTED
cs.xpi ACCEPTED
da.xpi ACCEPTED
de.xpi ACCEPTED
el.xpi ACCEPTED
en-GB.xpi ACCEPTED
es-AR.xpi ACCEPTED
es-ES.xpi ACCEPTED
eu.xpi ACCEPTED
fi.xpi ACCEPTED
fr.xpi ACCEPTED
fy-NL.xpi ACCEPTED
ga-IE.xpi ACCEPTED
gl.xpi ACCEPTED
gu-IN.xpi ACCEPTED
he.xpi ACCEPTED
hi-IN.xpi ACCEPTED
hu.xpi ACCEPTED
id.xpi ACCEPTED
is.xpi ACCEPTED
it.xpi ACCEPTED
ja.xpi ACCEPTED
ka.xpi ACCEPTED
kn.xpi ACCEPTED
ko.xpi ACCEPTED
ku.xpi ACCEPTED
lt.xpi ACCEPTED
mk.xpi ACCEPTED
mn.xpi ACCEPTED
mr.xpi ACCEPTED
nb-NO.xpi ACCEPTED
nl.xpi ACCEPTED
nn-NO.xpi ACCEPTED
pa-IN.xpi ACCEPTED
pl.xpi ACCEPTED
pt-BR.xpi ACCEPTED
pt-PT.xpi ACCEPTED
ro.xpi ACCEPTED
ru.xpi ACCEPTED
si.xpi ACCEPTED
sk.xpi ACCEPTED
sl.xpi ACCEPTED
sq.xpi REJECTED because it is invalid. See: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=324832
sr.xpi ACCEPTED
sv-SE.xpi ACCEPTED
te.xpi ACCEPTED
th.xpi ACCEPTED
tr.xpi ACCEPTED
uk.xpi ACCEPTED
zh-CN.xpi ACCEPTED
zh-TW.xpi ACCEPTED
Seve

Hlingler
23rd December 2008, 03:22 AM
For the record, the "official" list of language codes is here: http://translate.fedoraproject.org/languages

V

Demz
23rd December 2008, 03:24 AM
easier to disable the language packs in firefox thats all i do

StephenH
23rd December 2008, 04:51 AM
Thanks everyone. I should be able to fix it now.

Stephen

scottro
24th April 2009, 07:34 PM
Just ran into this again today. It seems easier to resurrect this one than to start a new thread....

What bothers me is this. I specifically tell firefox not to install addons and not even to check for them.

Yet, with each update it installs them anyway.

This is MS type behavior. Aside from the annoyance issue. It seems to be Fedora only, as far as I can tell.

One assumes there is a logical reason for it, but it seems that I can get other languages working on any other system without this.

Hlingler
24th April 2009, 08:20 PM
Hi Scott:

What add-ons, other than all the Language Packs, are installed? I'm not aware of any, except maybe one or two Java Console thingies. You should be able to filter out the langpacks as described above. For the record, here's the file /etc/rpm/macros.lang that I created based on Remi Collet's instructions:
# 2008-06-21 VJS: Add language filter for RPM installs as per Remi Collet's suggestion
# See: http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=192162&page=2
%_install_langs en
#End.Hmm... now that I check my latest firefox package, all langpacks seem to be there, so they were not excluded. But I know it worked before.

V

scottro
25th April 2009, 12:13 AM
Hi Vince,

Just the language packs. However, what bothers me is that I specifically said (because of the language packs) to not install any add ons without prompting.

It seems to only happen with a firefox upgrade, but the paranoid side of me says Ok, this means that it will install things without me having a chance to stop it. Suppose it were something evil.

As has been said, it's not that they take up so much space or even slow down firefox and I usually use opera anyway. It's more the principle of it that is aggravating, and again, I don't understand its purpose as it doesn't seem to happen in any distribution save Fedora.

RahulSundaram
25th April 2009, 07:21 AM
Hi,

Is there a bug report filed on this?

scottro
25th April 2009, 08:53 AM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477127

I guess they think it's too hard to do.

Not sure why, as it seems everyone else has managed, but, being neither programmer nor packager, I wouldn't even speculate.

RahulSundaram
25th April 2009, 09:04 AM
Hi,

It is not hard to split the packages. It is harder to install them on demand but we do that for Openoffice.org and other places where the locales can be quite big. It is just a trade-off. I will ask again when Fedora 12 is discussed.

nazg78
25th April 2009, 10:39 AM
Just want to add another voice to not having the language packs installed. It's not that they're in the way, except when Firefox updates and checks for add-ons. It's the principle of installing something I didn't ask for. Even my Firefox on Windows doesn't have any language packs installed.

And the argument that they don't take up much space is void. If every package adds something unnecessary then the entire system will become a big blob of unnecessary stuff at the end.

The goal should be that the user get what the user asks for. And I know that I didn't ask for language packs. If I want a language pack I should be able to pick the one I want and not have every other language installed as well.

Just my opinion.

scottro
25th April 2009, 01:47 PM
Rahul, thank you as always.


At nazg78, yes, that's pretty much my feeling, I don't like having things installed when I don't ask for them, especially when I've specifically said don't.


And, it seemed to be so proud of announcing that it had installed 58 language packs.
I always take software personally, and felt it was gloating. :)

scottro
4th July 2009, 06:27 PM
Y'know all that really seems necessary is to set the define lang_pack or whatever the line is to 0 by default in the spec file. Not sure why they're saying it's so difficult.

One problem I've found, on one install and one only, is that not doing the language packs apparently does something to some cpio sum--when trying to install on that machine, I get a cpio Digest mismatch and haven't found a way to get rpm to ignore it.

I swear it gets more like Wndows all the time.

Yes, in general it's a good idea, but there used to at least be an option to ignore md5 mismatches.

RahulSundaram
7th July 2009, 11:34 AM
Hi,

Turning off the language packages during build will just disable the locales completely and you wouldn't have the chance to install them back when needed.. Remember that majority of packages have locales in them with very few exceptions. Users are mostly complaining because Firefox makes it more visible. The solution (being worked on upstream) is to just load them on demand based on the locale and not on every run.

scottro
7th July 2009, 11:42 AM
By upstream, this seems to be RH, rather than firefox. At least, if one downloads a tarball from mozilla, there are no additional language packs installed by default.

For what it's worth, not having the Japanese language pack didn't interfere with me being able to read and enter text in Japanese characters.

It really seems to be a rather unpopular choice, and one does hope that they do eventually change it.

Thanks.

RahulSundaram
7th July 2009, 12:10 PM
Hi,

No. By upstream, I really do mean upstream. When bundling locales together, they don't need to load all the locales all the time. Upstream doesn't bundle together because they have completely different binaries for each locale. Such duplication is wasteful at the distribution level however and we can't take the same approach.

StephenH
7th July 2009, 01:07 PM
Hi,

Turning off the language packages during build will just disable the locales completely and you wouldn't have the chance to install them back when needed.. Remember that majority of packages have locales in them with very few exceptions. Users are mostly complaining because Firefox makes it more visible. The solution (being worked on upstream) is to just load them on demand based on the locale and not on every run.

This looks like a solution I can live with. Is there any timeframe as to when this might be available?

RahulSundaram
7th July 2009, 03:59 PM
Hi,

No. I don't recall the bugzilla number. You will have to look it up if you are interested.

stefan1975
7th July 2009, 04:33 PM
this was my bug report for this problem last year or so:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456045

it was closed as WONTFIX though.

Ronaldvr
19th July 2009, 06:57 PM
To me it seems like this is a consequence of a wrong choice. On a fresh install of FC 11 I just for the fun of it deselected all languages I did not want (about 10: punjabi arabic tajjik, khmer etc). I got the message that 607 additional packages were going to be deinstalled as well. This is insane: it is like the MS windows server stupidity where the service packs include an update for minesweeper. Why are all these things daisy-chained together in this way? Why do I need to install support for completely obscure languages (obscure to me that is of course) to get a running system? I understand the localization issue, however, localization should in my opinion not mean that I personally need to install every language in the world. It should mean I can use my language (and only that one) if and as I want to.

RahulSundaram
19th July 2009, 07:25 PM
Hi,

There is no "daisy-chain". If it was, it wouldn't be possible to uninstall all those packages. Every mainstream distribution has locale specific content in the main packages because it is not worth the effort to split up into tiny tiny pieces for one or two files in most cases. The reason why they are installed by default is because Fedora is a global community and these languages are widely used. In fact, majority of users use non- English locales

http://smolts.org/static/stats/stats.html

Many of them like say our Japanese or Chinese friends do not understand English while our English speaking users can very well unselect or uninstall them later. Imagine having to go through a Chinese only desktop to install English and then you would know why. Also we choose to install the fonts because even users who don't use a locale specific desktop like me want to read content available in other languages and that is a very common thing.

Ronaldvr
20th July 2009, 06:47 PM
Rahul,

I think you miss the point. Firstly, of the 607 packages that were uninstalled was for example OpenOffice and much more (in my opinion 'unrelated') software.
Secondly I am am not against having the languages on the install medium, just on my harddrive obviously chained with a lot of other (unrelated) packages.
Thirdly it's just wrong from a security point of view to have unnecessary programs hanging around.
Fourth it consumes unnecessary bandwidth (and time) during updates.
Lastly, you could try to group files in logical clusters (as indeed microsoft does). So you install just the chinese language packs or the indian language packs or the western european language packs. It obviously does not really matter whether I see an Unicode 'code' in my screen or a Chinese or Sanskrit character: they are both equally incomprehensible to me. What you say

because even users who don't use a locale specific desktop like me want to read content available in other languages and that is a very common thing
may be true but not even microsoft installs every language in the world on my machine. I think the intention is good, however in promoting international stuff Fedora has gone a bit off the deep end here.

RahulSundaram
20th July 2009, 06:57 PM
Hi,

*shrug*. I suppose you are entitled to your opinion. If you disagree with the software defaults, you get to control it via kickstart or spinning your own images.

Ronaldvr
20th July 2009, 07:14 PM
Rahul,

Nope I can't do that if the packages are linked together can I? Aside from the time and effort. Also I think 'you are entitled to your opinion' is a very lame answer. Don't you see that you (Fedora) is not helping to create a good user experience here? Even if you as you say switch locales, how many do you really use? Is it therefore necessary to bang a system chock full with all the languages in the world? I don't think so. If what you say is true, that it is 'necessary' because of localization, then I still think someone has made a bad design decision awhile ago, and that even though Fedora may be stuck with it for now), it was still a bad idea.

RahulSundaram
20th July 2009, 07:21 PM
Hi,

If they are dependencies, you cannot remove them. The fact that you *can* remove them is a clear indication that they are not dependencies that cannot be removed. Show me exactly what you cannot remove if you are going to continue making that claim.

I didn't say I am switching locales, I said I am reading content in different languages and the content we read is different from each other and in a global community, we have to think about not just what we personally use but also what benefits the community on the whole. We just disagree that it is a bad idea. There is absolutely nothing lame about saying that I disagree with you.

scottro
20th July 2009, 07:34 PM
Hi Ronaldvr.

Rahul is one of the developers who *does* care about the users' experience, and *does* try to work with us when possible.

I do understand your aggravation, as you can see from my posts in this thread, I share it. :D However, it's not Rahul's specific decision, and if you are fair, you will see that he has already explained--even if we don't like the explanation. Believe me, many developers would simply ignore we users.

Anyway, aside from all that, yes, it's very difficult to deal with the language pack issue for several reasons. Rebuilding the src.rpm seems to frequently resuilt in a cpio sum mismatch, because there's supposd to, as near as I can determine, be language packs in some of the lib directories. I haven't found a pattern to this, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I'm not sure how one would disable it in a kickstart (and haven't researched it either) but that does seem overkill in many situations.

So far, the only way that I've seen to uninstall them is to start firefox as root and with approximately 6 keystrokes per language, uninstall the ones that you don't need.

Adam W. has also done a little looking into this for we users, while I don't have the link handy, there is the possibility that it willl be handled another way--sorry, the details escape me at present.

At any rate, my basic points here:
Rahul is one of those people who makes exceptional effort for the users, therefore, when his opinions disagree with ours, we long time Fedora fora/maililng list folks keep that in mind--in other words, we try not to be, "What have you done for me lately?" ignoring all that has been done in the past.

As for your opinion about it adding extra security risks, bloat and everything else, as mentioned, I agree with all your arguments against it. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem one that is going to be changed quickly, so I've just dealt with it, one way or another, in part, by using opera (which I prefer anyway) unless a site absolutely requires firefox.

The same with dependencies. It's one of those things that can sometimes be changed by a bug report or RFE (request for enhancement) and sometimes not.

Hopefully, this is clear. I'm not saying accept all decisions developers make, they're wonderful and we're dumb, just saying that it's always best to remain polite, see if a bug report has been filed and if so, what was the result, and to sometimes, just shrug and decide to either deal with it or find another distribution.

Unfortunately, almost every distribution and/or O/S has something that will REALLY aggravate us that another O/S does better. Use any of them long enough, and it will turn into a love/hate relationship.

So, please try to remain polite (though we have a venting forum now) :D, and it's always good to try to read an entire thread
(Yes, this one has gotten very long, this is post 30 in the thread unless someone posts before I finish this). I think, if you look at the whole thread, you will see that Rahul has generally been sympathetic to the complaint, at least in my opinion.

RahulSundaram
20th July 2009, 07:49 PM
Hi,

The security argument is a red herring by the way. Let's break down what locale specific packages include

a) Dictionaries
b) Fonts
c) Translated strings

Content like this can have zero security risks really. Security risk increases only when functional software is included.

Ronaldvr
20th July 2009, 08:05 PM
If they are dependencies, you cannot remove them. The fact that you *can* remove them is a clear indication that they are not dependencies that cannot be removed. Show me exactly what you cannot remove if you are going to continue making that claim. Like having to uninstall OpenOffice does not for all intents and proposes makes a system unusable I don't know what does. (Of course you probably mean it literally in that the system boots up) but I mean a workable system.

We just disagree that it is a bad ideaNope I think it is a good idea, but why do I need all languages for that and not just the ones you really use?

There is absolutely nothing lame about saying that I disagree with you. That is not what you said You said (and i quoted):
'you are entitled to your opinion' which in my way of reading English means a brush-off.

And indeed I disagree when you say

we have to think about not just what we personally use but also what benefits the community on the whole
When it also means the community has to 'suffer' as a whole as a consequence of that. I am in software development myself, and I think that it is a bad idea to force a group of users to have to do something as a consequence of benefiting a single user. If I can write the software differently, and that means that 1000 users will not have to do a certain action -that may only take them 5 minutes- that means I can spend 40 hours extra and as a whole the community still comes out ahead 43 hours.

Ronaldvr
20th July 2009, 08:12 PM
Hi,

I do not think having a good argument is being unkind. What frustrates me about a lot of the answers is that they are a sort of 'newspeak'. What I am trying to get is a clear answer, and that does not seem to be forthcoming. I think choices are and have been made, that may not have benefited users. Within an open source development process that is probably inevitable. However I think Rahul is treading a tight line between defending something a few people think makes no sense, and obviously someone else think it does make enormous sense.
However if healthy critique is impossible, problems get shovelled under the mat. I have tried to have a discussion about this kind of behaviour here before, and it got shut down very quickly. That just does not seem very healthy to me...

RahulSundaram
20th July 2009, 08:23 PM
Hi,

I have a system without Openoffice.org and it is perfectly usable for me. What exactly are you referring to. How about showing a specific dependency issue? Say a yum output for instance.

The defaults includes all the languages to support all the different locales out of the box. There is no way for the system installer to predict in advance what locales will be used by me. What you lose is some disk space (no security issue clearly as I have explained before). You can uninstall what you don't want if that bothers you so much. A kickstart file would make this very trivial. However for a person who doesn't read English, the vice versa is very difficult. If you want to continue to disagree, yes then you are free to hold your own opinions and that is not a brush off at all. I would be willing to consider specific instances of dependency issues. None have been provided so far.

Ronaldvr
20th July 2009, 09:01 PM
I'll get it for you it will take a little while though.

leigh123linux
20th July 2009, 11:36 PM
................................

StephenH
24th July 2009, 02:45 PM
Hi,

I have a system without Openoffice.org and it is perfectly usable for me. What exactly are you referring to. How about showing a specific dependency issue? Say a yum output for instance.

The defaults includes all the languages to support all the different locales out of the box. There is no way for the system installer to predict in advance what locales will be used by me. What you lose is some disk space (no security issue clearly as I have explained before). You can uninstall what you don't want if that bothers you so much. A kickstart file would make this very trivial. However for a person who doesn't read English, the vice versa is very difficult. If you want to continue to disagree, yes then you are free to hold your own opinions and that is not a brush off at all. I would be willing to consider specific instances of dependency issues. None have been provided so far.

It would be nice though if once I uninstalled all of the languages, they would stay uninstalled. Instead, on the next update of Firefox, there they all are again. Is there an easy way to purge them and have them stay purged?

RahulSundaram
24th July 2009, 03:05 PM
Hi,

Afaik, no

Rune Relic
21st February 2010, 02:38 PM
Hi,

Afaik, no

So what we are saying is the cutomer/user hates the product because he has to uninstall or disable every damn language pack every time the program updates or installs.

You are saying 'tough' because 'some' language packs need to be installed 'sometimes' for a 'minority' of users.

Yet the programs records what is installed/disabled and not installed/enabled by the user anyway (ie not wanted by user) ????

So why not use that information to keep every one happy. Which I do take it is the object of talking to your customers/users, and not for the purpose of obfuscation ?

Please use any existing installed/enabled addon record to automate the process of addon installation/enablement.

I am 100% certain this is well within your capabilities and keeps every user happy.

RahulSundaram
21st February 2010, 09:06 PM
Hi

Nope Only the Firefox maintainers can do any changes and not me

smr54
21st February 2010, 09:18 PM
You mean the Fedora firefox maintainers, correct? I am fairly certain that this is not a Mozilla decision.

RahulSundaram
21st February 2010, 09:42 PM
Hi

I have already explained the details above Mozilla has completely different builds for different locales which is not feasible for a distribution and Mozilla is working on a way to fix things so that distributions can build things more modularly

myrrdyn
5th May 2010, 10:56 AM
I have A LOT of inconvenience with language packs updates.

I disabled them all from Firefox (long and tedious work),
but for every update it insist to update them.

The REAL problem is that I'm behind a proxy (my employer's proxy)
and firefox displays a proxy authentication window FOR EVERY language pack!

An update can take 15 minutes just for the time required to fill all the authentication windows.

How can I really DISABLE the language packs?
Why they are so necessary on Fedora (and just on Fedora) ?