Tuesday, 4 June 2013

Re: Systems with invalid locales

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=Ayjr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 06/04/2013 06:33 AM, Adam Conrad wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2013 at 04:18:40AM -0600, Adam Conrad wrote:
>>
>> I wonder if it might be high time to discuss slapping C.UTF-8 in the
>> default locale in pretty much every minimal installation scenario we
>> can think of (obviously, still overriding in more complex installers
>> that allow a user to choose a properly local locale).
>
> And on a vague tangent from that, it might also be getting close to a
> point where we should discuss switching buildds to C.UTF-8 too (they
> currently force C). My gut feeling is that this shouldn't have much
> effect, with the following assumptions:
>
> 1) Most packages and testsuites shouldn't care what locale they're
> run in in the first place (but it doesn't seem to make sense to
> test in a locale almost no one uses in production, while a UTF-8
> locale will at least trip a few curious issues real people see)
>
> 2) Most packages that do require being in C for their builds or for
> their testsuite probably already force this, because maintainers
> have been working in fancy locales for years now, and they've
> had to force C where needed to make things work outside chroots.
>
> Pretty sure we *would* run into some packages (especially older ones)
> that would fail in a UTF-8 locale, but I think the general benefit of
> building in a locale more similar to 99% of people's runtime locales
> would be a net win, even if we have to fix builds and testsuites to
> cope.
>
> Thoughts?

+1

I stopped counting the number of packages I had to fix because they blew
up mid-build while trying to parse their own changelog and exploded on
my name, so I'd be very happy to finally have a UTF-8 locale on our buildds.

I'd also be very surprised if we had actual cases where C.UTF-8 gives a
different result than C. Unless some tests actually attempt to print
non-ASCII characters under C, but that'd be a pretty weird test to have.

So I think it's a change worth doing and any issue we find will clearly
be bugs that should simply get fixed.

--
Stéphane Graber
Ubuntu developer
http://www.ubuntu.com