Bug 156194

Summary: When no locale-specific thesaurus is available, fallback to a language-only one
Product: LibreOffice Reporter: Eyal Rozenberg <eyalroz1>
Component: WriterAssignee: Not Assigned <libreoffice-bugs>
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE    
Severity: normal CC: dgp-mail, stephane.guillou
Priority: medium    
Version: Inherited From OOo   
Hardware: All   
OS: All   
See Also: https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=156101
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83561
https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154366
Whiteboard:
Crash report or crash signature: Regression By:
Bug Depends on:    
Bug Blocks: 105747    

Description Eyal Rozenberg 2023-07-07 14:19:57 UTC 
Some languages have multiple local variants, e.g. en-US, en-UK, en-ZA etc. In fact, they may have dozens more which don't have any specific definitions. And if such a locale is used in LO, we don't get to use various mechanisms which are currently locale-specific with no language-level fallback. One of these is the Thesaurus.

A recent example has been en-IL: bug 156101. That one was solved by manually adding it as one of the locales covered by en-US.

I suggest that, as a general measure, there will be a fallback to a language-level default thesaurus/dictionary file/fileset, so that the same procedure need not be repeated whenever one uses an uncommon locale we have not specifically catered to.
Comment 1 Stéphane Guillou (stragu) 2023-07-09 17:11:18 UTC 
As I've mentioned in bug 156101 comment 14, I think this should be covered by a solution for 83561.

To me, it doesn't make sense to have a language variant's fallback mechanism that is functional for spellcheck, but not for e.g. thesaurus. I don't think we need that complexity.

In my opinion, this should be closed as a duplicate of bug 83561 (just like bug 154366).

Otherwise, make those two blocked by bug 83561.
Comment 2 Dieter 2024-06-15 21:16:37 UTC 
(In reply to Stéphane Guillou (stragu) from comment #1)
> In my opinion, this should be closed as a duplicate of bug 83561 (just like
> bug 154366).
> 
> Otherwise, make those two blocked by bug 83561.

Eyal, what do you think?
Comment 3 Eyal Rozenberg 2024-06-15 21:59:48 UTC 
(In reply to Dieter from comment #2)
> Eyal, what do you think?

Agreed.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 83561 ***