Ken Moffat wrote: > Looking at #4745, there is a workaround for a problem building gegl > when ruby has already been installed. Dunno why the originator > hasn't actually put this in the wiki (I assume an ID for creating a > ticket provides those privilege?), but there is an easier solution: > > If I configure gegl in my normal UTF-8 locale, there is no problem > even with ruby already installed. But if I pass LC_ALL=C to > configure, I get the reported problem during 'make' : > > ../tools/create-reference.rb:331:in `block (2 levels) in <main>': > invalid byte sequence in US-ASCII (ArgumentError) > from ../tools/create-reference.rb:325:in `foreach' > from ../tools/create-reference.rb:325:in `block in <main>' > from ../tools/create-reference.rb:318:in `times' > from ../tools/create-reference.rb:318:in `<main>' > Makefile:881: recipe for target 'api.html' failed > make[3]: *** [api.html] Error 1 > > What I don't recall is whether we ever recommend building packages > in BLFS using the C or POSIX locales ? My belief is that everyone > ought to be using UTF-8 locales by now, but from support posts over > the years I guess that some of our users are behind the curve in > this, and see no reason to change from legacy encodings (or perhaps > they have too much data to make that feasible). > > For this package, is it worth adding a note that it should be built > from a UTF-8 environment, e.g. by passing LC_ALL=en_US.UTF-8 ? > > I note that in LFS we recommend a number of locales, not all UTF-8, > for optimum test coverage (en_US.UTF-8 is one of these), followed by > "In addition, install the locale for your own country, language and > character set." so that if people decide to omit tests there is no > guarantee about which locales will exist.
I have a problem with en_US.UTF-8. I generally do not have any LC_ variable set and even have alias ls='LC_ALL=C ls --color=auto' because I once was running into a problem with ls ignoring case when sorting. If I do 'LC_ALL=en_US.UTF-8 man man', I get things like below. ... [--no-justifiâ <80><90> without, it gives the expected ... [--no-justifi- -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
