Comments can be wrong. Wouldn't it be better to do a real test to make sure it's really to be removed?

Comments can be wrong. Wouldn't it be better to do a real test to make sure it's really to be removed

and then update the comment if appropriate

Did you test before commenting? Do you think I submit PRs without testing?

Did you test before commenting? Do you think I submit PRs without testing?

@PhilETaylor No, haven't tested yet. I just asked to be sure you've tested because testing instructions are only about code review.

The clue is JPATH_INSTALLATION which means that this block of code can only ever be sensibly run when installing Joomla.

I was able to install Joomla 4 with French, and Persion languages with no errors during the installer process.

And I was able to complete the install and install the multi lingual test data with no issues after deleting the installation folder.

I was able to install Joomla 4 with French, and Persion languages with no errors during the installer process.

@PhilETaylor Then I hope it would not be the German language which would break it ? (joking).

Thanks for reporting back.

@PhilETaylor
(from ipad) Have you checked Content Languages Native Names?

And how would a person do that? No idea.

@PhilETaylor
Made some research on this and found out the reason for that code.
We could indeed take it off from 4.0 as I expect that totally new language packs for that version will contain the nativeName metadata in its site langmetadata.xml.

The reason we have the code in 3.x is because some languages were not updated and do not contain that metadata.

Example for Galician site gl-ES.xml ( http://joomlacode.org/gf/download/frsrelease/19631/159913/gl-ES_joomla_lang_full_3.3.1v2.zip ):

<metadata>
		<name>Galician (Galego)</name>
		<tag>gl-ES</tag>
		<rtl>0</rtl>
		<locale>gl_ES.utf8, gl_ES.UTF-8, gl_ES.UTF-8@euro, gl_ES, gal_ES, gl, galician</locale>
		<firstDay>1</firstDay>
		<weekEnd>0,6</weekEnd>
	</metadata>

But it contains the installation key which is used as fallback to create the Title Native for the Content Language grace to the code.

; IMPORTANT NOTE FOR TRANSLATORS: Do not literally translate this line, instead add the localised name of the language. For example Spanish will be Español
INSTL_DEFAULTLANGUAGE_NATIVE_LANGUAGE_NAME="Galego"

Which gives in 3.x

So for 3.x, we have 2 fallbacks:

Use the metadata [name] if no Site metadata{nativeName] and if no specific INSTL_DEFAULTLANGUAGE_NATIVE_LANGUAGE_NAME key.

If the code is deleted and you install in J4 the 3.x Galician pack, the Title Native will be Galician (Galego) which obviously is not native at all...

If whoever now in charge makes sure that the metadata[nativeName] is present for ALL new J4 lang packs, we can delete that code.

Hope it helps.

@infograf768 Thanks for your research and detailed information. So the question is if we can be sure about the metadata[nativeName] being present for ALL new J4 lang packs, and this is related to #21806 being solved, i.e. the new download infrastructure being ready and true J4 language packs being provided there.

@wilsonge Any news on that?

IMHO, it does not so much depends on the availability of the new download infrastructure (evidently as totally necessary), but of a control of the new packs.

If whoever now in charge makes sure that the metadata[nativeName] is present for ALL new J4 lang packs, we can delete that code.

I have no clue who's in charge now. @marcodings can you provide insight please

Paging @marcodings again... else lets just merge this or close it. No point dragging it out for another decade.

The language packs or installation ini & xml files are not controlled anymore by Production. I would not expect @marcodings to reply to you as he is the one who managed for Programs to be responsible for Core Translations.

So that begs the question: Who is actually responsible now? Who should this issues be addressed to?