Marc Espie wrote on Thu, May 08, 2014 at 07:20:52PM +0200:
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 12:07:30PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:44:51PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:

>>> While LC_CTYPE and LC_COLLATE make some sense, LC_MONETARY, LC_NUMERIC,
>>> and LC_TIME are badly overengineered, pointless bloat, causing nothing
>>> but surprising, erratic behaviour and portability problems when trying
>>> to parse output from programs.  I think this should be rejected outright
>>> and you should stop wasting your time on it.

>> They make sense for systems that try to provide full i18n.
>> Of course, we don't try to provide i18n, at least not for the
>> base system which is English only.  So they don't really make
>> sense *for OpenBSD*.

> ???
> Basic support for that stuff makes sense, as part of a *full* libc.
> Not surprisingly, Antoine is for providing LC_* support. So am I.
> This has little to do with "base OpenBSD", everything to do with "enough
> stuff to be able to compile reasonable portable software on OpenBSD 
> without needing to patch left and right".

I don't see how any software might need patching if we continue
to ignore LC_TIME, just like we do now.  It's just as if the user
never sets LC_TIME, which the standard specifically says *any*
software must cope with.

> As for portability issues: programs stay with the C locale *in any case*
> unless they do setlocale("") right at the start,

And that's what arch(1), at(1), awk(1), basename(1), calendar(1),
cat(1), chmod(1), cmp(1), cp(1), cron(8), csh(1), cut(1), date(1),
dig(1), dirname(1), env(1), expr(1), fmt(1), getconf(1), less(1),
logname(1), mandoc(1), mg(1), mkdir(1), mknod(8), nice(1), nl(1),
printf(1), rm(1), rmdir(1), sleep(1), sftp(1), sort(1), sudo(8),
tee(1), touch(1), tmux(1), uname(1), uudecode(1), vi(1), wc(1),
which(1), who(1), xargs(1) already do, right now.

Reliable and secure shell scripting will certainly be fun in
that LC_TIME ridden world.

> in which case they explicitly say "yes, I want to be localized".
> So, from that point of view the portability issues are minimal
> (yes, I'm aware of the can of worms that threads+locale may open).

>> That said, I don't have a general problem with adding other locale
>> categories.  I believe LC_TIME would provide a useful testbed for
>> eventually switching all our locales to the localedef format
>> (including LC_CTYPE). Alas, the proposed diff does something else,
>> and unfortunately I don't have enough time for a detailed rabbit
>> hole discussion and review with a lot of back-and-forth that we
>> had when discussing similar diffs in the past.

> THAT on the other hand is the issue at hand... chronic time shortage
> to be certain that what we do for locales isn't dangerous...

I don't doubt it *will* cause trouble even if it were done in the
so-called "right" way, because it's the basic design that is broken,
not just some implementation.  The concept is utterly wrong because
it does i18n *at the wrong level*, that is, not just in high level
graphical user interfaces, where it is merely annoying but doesn't
break much, but also at the system level, where it is nothing but
harmful.  And that layering violation is a direct consequence of
having this code at the wrong level.  No wonder it breaks everything
if it infects the C library including such functions as (according

 - LC_NUMERIC changing the radix character in strtod(3), printf(3), scanf(3)
 - LC_TIME changing what strftime(3), strptime(3) and getdate(3) do,
   up to including non-ASCII characters into library system messages
 - LC_MESSAGES changing what strerror(3) does
 - ...

Look here:

schwarze@donnerwolke:~$ uname
schwarze@donnerwolke:~$ locale
schwarze@donnerwolke:~$ ls -l .xsession-errors
-rw------- 1 schwarze schwarze 89221 28. MÃ €r 00:04 .xsession-errors

(Blank inserted for clarity).  Good luck parsing such abominations,
or as a system administrator, handling problem reports from users when
such stuff causes scripts to break.

Then again, given that this isn't going forward right now anyway,
maybe there is no need to waste time fighting back just yet.


Reply via email to