On 11/15/2015 2:36 PM, Andrey Chernov wrote: > On 15.11.2015 16:14, John Marino wrote: >>> It is user confusion and his responsibility. It not leads to wrong >>> program build f.e. Moreover, you can't protect users who set 8859-1 that >>> way, they do not convert to 8859-15 as you assume but start to complain >>> everywhere that FreeBSD is not working instead. >> >> Invalid. "locale -a" shows what locales are available. >> The confusion is not with one user. It's with one user that produces >> document in one encoding and a second user that choses the wrong one >> (usually -1). -15 was designed to replace -1. > > No end-user use 'locale -a' to check locales.
To quote you, that means it "user confusion and responsibility". Fine. He can "ls -d /usr/share/locales". Otherwise, how does said user set locales for the FIRST time. We are talking about people that install FreeBSD 11 as a release. If it's an upgrade, it's documented in UPDATING (it will be) and anybody on -CURRENT is taking responsibility for knowing what they are doing. *IF* this is an obstacle, it's either trivial or that user shouldn't be using -CURRENT to begin with. > An end-user keep some > 8859-1 version is set many years ago, and "FreeBSD not working" problem > I tell about is not different text document encoding, but program > failure due to inability to set his 8859-1 locale. Please provide an example of such a program (in ports). > In any case it is related to the user behavior an various views on it. > They can be different and I see no point to insist on my particular view > at all. But... Programs configure soft-fails shows real danger here. and the impact of this is ... ? > >> OpenBSD removed ISO8859* completely. > > OpenBSD was never good in locales in any case for all that years and > contributes nothing in that area (f.e. Citrus was made by NetBSD). Now > they try to simplify their life of supporting them, but since for us now > all locales are autogenerated from CLDR I see no room for simplification > in that way. Our "cleaned" locales (against to POLA) can be restored by > autogeneration with minimal efforts, and they even took very little disk > space. It's not a technical issue. -1 (and some -15) weren't removed for technical issues, but to keep order. >> Also invalid. Locales are not standardized with regard to encoding, so >> maintaining a museum of locales is specific to FreeBSD. Linux calls >> them differently. > > Most of our (old) locales have the same names as linux ones. Actually, none of the ISO* encodings. Linux will accept "ISO8859-1" because it's hyphen-insensitive, it it calls it "ISO-8859-1" Maybe obsolete ones like cp866, GB2312 ... but there are more different than the same. John _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"