On 11/15/2015 3:39 PM, Andrey Chernov wrote: > As I already say, I don't want to insist on any particular point of view > in such area as human behavior. I just say that it is POLA violation > (even while it is upgrade) and we can let users decide by themselves, > what it best for them (without me at least).
I am starting to think "POLA" as an acronym is subject to abuse. By this definition, *any* change would "astonish" a user (picturing the most incompetent user impossible too). POLA is meant for unreasonable and unexplained changes. I don't think tidying up locales for the first time in a decade is unreasonable or unexplained. Let's not dilute "POLA". It's pretty good but you can apply it to anything. >>> 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). > > See gettext-0.19.6/gettext-tools/configure, part started with > # Test for the usual locale name. > I don't have time to dig more such code now, but I remember I saw more > for sure. > >>> 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 ... ? > > Various. It depends on for what reason program sense locale. If the ports framework is not overriding locale to "C" during the build then that's probably something that should be introduced. Ports should not be producing different results based on the configuration of the building machine at the time. Right? It's also good practice because C/POSIX never results in illegal sequence errors while locales such as UTF-8 easily can. 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"