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.ca...@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com>,
sbr...@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
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to