From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 3 01:31:18 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 426172D2; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 01:31:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.netplex.net", Issuer "RapidSSL CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE04337B; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 01:31:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.netplex.net (8.14.8/8.14.8/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id s331V8Ej024737; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 21:31:08 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net) X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.9]); Wed, 02 Apr 2014 21:31:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 21:31:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: Steve Wills Subject: Re: login.conf --> UTF-8 In-Reply-To: <20140403011202.GA51052@mouf.net> Message-ID: References: <201404022206.s32M6DD4090396@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> <1396479395.2280.21.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> <20140403011202.GA51052@mouf.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Garrett Wollman , current@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Eischen List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 01:31:18 -0000 On Thu, 3 Apr 2014, Steve Wills wrote: > On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 03:56:35PM -0700, Sean Bruno wrote: >> On Wed, 2014-04-02 at 18:06 -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote: >>> In article <1396457629.2280.2.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com>, >>> sbruno@freebsd.org writes: >>> >>>> I'd like to make this change to login.conf for default installs. >>>> >>>> This removes some amount of hackery in the ports system that is working >>>> around our lack of UTF-8 in the base. >>> >>> I'm not sure what the connection is here. Surely the ports system >>> runs with the locale of the user running "make" (which in my case is >>> going to be "C"). Any port that requires a specific locale to build >>> properly needs to be setting that locale explicitly. >>> > > You'd think so, but that's not what's happening. What's happening is the > software builds as long as the locale isn't C. Hence, ugly hacks like this: > > http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/Mk/bsd.ruby.mk?annotate=348863#l257 > > Why? Because the people writing it have never encountered a system where LANG > isn't set or is set to C. Yes, it's a bug in their software. No, they never > have and never will encounter it. Because every other operating system sets > LANG to whatever the user specifies. And so they have no interest in fixing it, > because neither they nor any one they know will ever encounter it, and even if > you report it to them they will tell you it's a bug in your system for not > having LANG specified. And I have no interest in patching it hundreds of > times. > > And this is just one example. There are others, I think, that aren't ruby > related at all. The first thing I do when I get a Linux system is set LANG to C. I hate all the colorizations and incorrect ordering from ls when LANG isn't C. So you are saying, that ports will be broken when I set LANG back to C again? >> I have been informed by folks that this change I suggest would help in >> the case of ports having to declare UTF-8 support explicitly or >> something. I'm hand-wavy on the details and ignorant of the hacks in >> place. I only know that I've been *told* this. > > I think we should join the club of asking the user, but that's more work and > until then having a reasonable default and having people change it seems sane. A default is fine, but saying that ports will be broken when not using the default is not fine. This is LANG, not a gcc/clang machine-specific optimization that someone has set to get an extra 0.001% improvement, but happens to break the compiler for some ports. -- DE