bug#27244: Should not $GUIX_LOCPATH belong to ‘glibc-locales’ rather than ‘glibc’?

bug#27244: Should not $GUIX_LOCPATH belong to ‘glibc-locales’ rather than ‘glibc’?

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

As of now [0] a search path ‘GUIX_LOCPATH’ is exported when ‘glibc’
package, which does not comprise any locales, is installed.  I guess,
it should belong to ‘glibc-locales’ and ‘glibc-utf8-locales’ instead.

[0] http://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/gnu/packages/base.scm?id=3bee4b619#n740

bug#27244: Should not $GUIX_LOCPATH belong to ‘glibc-locales’ rather than ‘glibc’?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Dmitry,

Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> skribis:

> As of now [0] a search path ‘GUIX_LOCPATH’ is exported when ‘glibc’
> package, which does not comprise any locales, is installed.  I guess,
> it should belong to ‘glibc-locales’ and ‘glibc-utf8-locales’ instead.

The idea of search path specifications like ‘GUIX_LOCPATH’ is that the
package that honors them defines them.

For example, Python defines ‘PYTHONPATH’, Guile defines
‘GUILE_LOAD_PATH’, and so on.

In this case, ‘GUIX_LOCPATH’ is honored by glibc, so glibc defines it.

If instead ‘glibc-utf8-locales’ defined it, then you’d immediately get
the recommendation about setting ‘GUIX_LOCPATH’, which I guess is what
you’d like to see.  However, every locale-providing package would need
to define it, which is not great.

On a related note, see this issue about indirect search path
specifications: <https://bugs.gnu.org/22138>.

Does it make sense?

Thanks for your message,
Ludo’.

bug#27244: Should not $GUIX_LOCPATH belong to ‘glibc-locales’ rather than ‘glibc’?

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

>> As of now [0] a search path ‘GUIX_LOCPATH’ is exported when ‘glibc’
>> package, which does not comprise any locales, is installed.  I guess,
>> it should belong to ‘glibc-locales’ and ‘glibc-utf8-locales’ instead.
>
> The idea of search path specifications like ‘GUIX_LOCPATH’ is that the
> package that honors them defines them.
>
> For example, Python defines ‘PYTHONPATH’, Guile defines
> ‘GUILE_LOAD_PATH’, and so on.

But locales are honoured by nearly every program.  And nearly every
program complains when they are not found:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ guix
guile: warning: failed to install locale
warning: failed to install locale: Invalid argument
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

> In this case, ‘GUIX_LOCPATH’ is honored by glibc, so glibc defines it.

From the user point of view ‘glibc’ is a package that installs
catchsegv(1), getconf(1), getent(1), iconv(1), ldd(1), locale(1),
localedef(1), makedb(1), mtrace(1), pcprofiledump, sprof(1),
tzselect(1) and xtrace(1).

At least on top of a foreign distro, when Guix is used as a
language-specific package manager for GNU Guile for instance, that is a
quite unlikely a package to be installed in the profile.

> If instead ‘glibc-utf8-locales’ defined it, then you’d immediately get
> the recommendation about setting ‘GUIX_LOCPATH’, which I guess is what
> you’d like to see.

Yes, that is exactly what I expected as a user: when locales are
installed they come into play.

> However, every locale-providing package would need to define it,
> which is not great.

But would not thorough following “search paths are exported by the
active side” convention implies that every single package that ships a
localized program has to define $GUIX_LOCPATH?  That would be about
100 % of packages, I guess.

On the other hand, now there are only two locale-providing packages,
as I can see: ‘glibc-locales’ and ‘glibc-utf8-locales’.  Are there
plans to split them up?  Is not that supposed to be done by means of
‘outputs’: glibc-locales:en, glibc-locales:fr, etc?

(By the way, ‘glibc-utf8-locales’ looks like a misnomer to me, on the
first glance on it a user have nothing but to think that it comprises
UTF-8 locales for all supported languages.)

> On a related note, see this issue about indirect search path
> specifications: <https://bugs.gnu.org/22138>.

Oops.  My bad, I indeed should search for opened bugs more carefully.
(I hope it should be possible to merge two issues within debbugs, is
not it?)

bug#27244: Should not $GUIX_LOCPATH belong to ‘glibc-locales’ rather than ‘glibc’?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> skribis:

>>> As of now [0] a search path ‘GUIX_LOCPATH’ is exported when ‘glibc’
>>> package, which does not comprise any locales, is installed.  I guess,
>>> it should belong to ‘glibc-locales’ and ‘glibc-utf8-locales’ instead.
>>
>> The idea of search path specifications like ‘GUIX_LOCPATH’ is that the
>> package that honors them defines them.
>>
>> For example, Python defines ‘PYTHONPATH’, Guile defines
>> ‘GUILE_LOAD_PATH’, and so on.
>
> But locales are honoured by nearly every program.  And nearly every
> program complains when they are not found:
>
> $ guix
> guile: warning: failed to install locale
> warning: failed to install locale: Invalid argument

Yeah.

>> In this case, ‘GUIX_LOCPATH’ is honored by glibc, so glibc defines it.
>
> From the user point of view ‘glibc’ is a package that installs
> catchsegv(1), getconf(1), getent(1), iconv(1), ldd(1), locale(1),
> localedef(1), makedb(1), mtrace(1), pcprofiledump, sprof(1),
> tzselect(1) and xtrace(1).
>
> At least on top of a foreign distro, when Guix is used as a
> language-specific package manager for GNU Guile for instance, that is a
> quite unlikely a package to be installed in the profile.

Right.

>> If instead ‘glibc-utf8-locales’ defined it, then you’d immediately get
>> the recommendation about setting ‘GUIX_LOCPATH’, which I guess is what
>> you’d like to see.
>
> Yes, that is exactly what I expected as a user: when locales are
> installed they come into play.
>
>> However, every locale-providing package would need to define it,
>> which is not great.
>
> But would not thorough following “search paths are exported by the
> active side” convention implies that every single package that ships a
> localized program has to define $GUIX_LOCPATH?  That would be about
> 100 % of packages, I guess.

Correct.

> On the other hand, now there are only two locale-providing packages,
> as I can see: ‘glibc-locales’ and ‘glibc-utf8-locales’.  Are there
> plans to split them up?  Is not that supposed to be done by means of
> ‘outputs’: glibc-locales:en, glibc-locales:fr, etc?

There are no concrete plans no.  The problem is that any split is really
arbitrary.

> (By the way, ‘glibc-utf8-locales’ looks like a misnomer to me, on the
> first glance on it a user have nothing but to think that it comprises
> UTF-8 locales for all supported languages.)

It is!  The manual clearly warns about it, saying that it’s “limited to
a few UTF-8 locales”:
<https://gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Application-Setup.html#Locales>.

Note that the Guix 0.13.0 binary tarball comes with glibc-utf8-locales
and glibc, such that its etc/profile defines ‘GUIX_LOCPATH’.

>> On a related note, see this issue about indirect search path
>> specifications: <https://bugs.gnu.org/22138>.
>
> Oops.  My bad, I indeed should search for opened bugs more carefully.
> (I hope it should be possible to merge two issues within debbugs, is
> not it?)

Yes we can merge them.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

bug#27244: Should not $GUIX_LOCPATH belong to ‘glibc-locales’ rather than ‘glibc’?

[Dmitry Alexandrov]

>>>> As of now [0] a search path ‘GUIX_LOCPATH’ is exported when ‘glibc’
>>>> package, which does not comprise any locales, is installed.  I guess,
>>>> it should belong to ‘glibc-locales’ and ‘glibc-utf8-locales’ instead.
>>>
>>> The idea of search path specifications like ‘GUIX_LOCPATH’ is that the
>>> package that honors them defines them.
>>>
>>> For example, Python defines ‘PYTHONPATH’, Guile defines
>>> ‘GUILE_LOAD_PATH’, and so on.
>>
>> But locales are honoured by nearly every program.  And nearly every
>> program complains when they are not found:
>>
>> $ guix
>> guile: warning: failed to install locale
>> warning: failed to install locale: Invalid argument
>
> Yeah.
>
>>> In this case, ‘GUIX_LOCPATH’ is honored by glibc, so glibc defines it.
>>
>> From the user point of view ‘glibc’ is a package that installs
>> catchsegv(1), getconf(1), getent(1), iconv(1), ldd(1), locale(1),
>> localedef(1), makedb(1), mtrace(1), pcprofiledump, sprof(1),
>> tzselect(1) and xtrace(1).
>>
>> At least on top of a foreign distro, when Guix is used as a
>> language-specific package manager for GNU Guile for instance, that is a
>> quite unlikely a package to be installed in the profile.
>
> Right.
>
>>> If instead ‘glibc-utf8-locales’ defined it, then you’d immediately get
>>> the recommendation about setting ‘GUIX_LOCPATH’, which I guess is what
>>> you’d like to see.
>>
>> Yes, that is exactly what I expected as a user: when locales are
>> installed they come into play.
>>
>>> However, every locale-providing package would need to define it,
>>> which is not great.
>>
>> But would not thorough following “search paths are exported by the
>> active side” convention implies that every single package that ships a
>> localized program has to define $GUIX_LOCPATH?  That would be about
>> 100 % of packages, I guess.
>
> Correct.

So...?  If moving search path definitions to the packages that
actually provide searchable stuff is not feasible, another
foreign-distro-user-friendly option, I can imagine, is to have a
package (a ‘virtual package’, if you will) that would only add a
search path to etc/profile without installing any executables.

That approach might benefit to a user of Guix on top of a another
distro not only with respect to $GUIX_LOCPATH.  I hope, to be able,
for example, to read documentation of Guix-installed programs with
/usr/bin/emacs or /usr/bin/info or even /usr/bin/tkinfo rather than
emacs(1) / info(1) from Guix is a fairly reasonable wish, so having a
package that only appends $INFOPATH would be nice.  ‘emacs’ and
‘texinfo’ packages would have it as propagated dependency.

>> On the other hand, now there are only two locale-providing packages,
>> as I can see: ‘glibc-locales’ and ‘glibc-utf8-locales’.  Are there
>> plans to split them up?  Is not that supposed to be done by means of
>> ‘outputs’: glibc-locales:en, glibc-locales:fr, etc?
>
> There are no concrete plans no.  The problem is that any split is really
> arbitrary.
>
>> (By the way, ‘glibc-utf8-locales’ looks like a misnomer to me, on the
>> first glance on it a user have nothing but to think that it comprises
>> UTF-8 locales for all supported languages.)
>
> It is!  The manual clearly warns about it, saying that it’s “limited to
> a few UTF-8 locales”:
> <https://gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Application-Setup.html#Locales>.
>
> Note that the Guix 0.13.0 binary tarball comes with glibc-utf8-locales
> and glibc, such that its etc/profile defines ‘GUIX_LOCPATH’.

Excuse me?  I far as I understand, etc/profile is managed on
per-profile (i. e. per-user) basis.  Thus $GUIX_LOCPATH is not
exported until every user explicitly installs ‘glibc’ (along with all
its bin/ldd, etc).  Or did I miss something?

>>> On a related note, see this issue about indirect search path
>>> specifications: <https://bugs.gnu.org/22138>.
>>
>> Oops.  My bad, I indeed should search for opened bugs more carefully.
>> (I hope it should be possible to merge two issues within debbugs, is
>> not it?)
>
> Yes we can merge them.

bug#27244: Should not $GUIX_LOCPATH belong to ‘glibc-locales’ rather than ‘glibc’?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Dmitry,

Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> skribis:

>>>> However, every locale-providing package would need to define it,
>>>> which is not great.
>>>
>>> But would not thorough following “search paths are exported by the
>>> active side” convention implies that every single package that ships a
>>> localized program has to define $GUIX_LOCPATH?  That would be about
>>> 100 % of packages, I guess.
>>
>> Correct.
>
> So...?  If moving search path definitions to the packages that
> actually provide searchable stuff is not feasible, another
> foreign-distro-user-friendly option, I can imagine, is to have a
> package (a ‘virtual package’, if you will) that would only add a
> search path to etc/profile without installing any executables.

I believe the right way to address this issue is by fixing
<https://bugs.gnu.org/22138>.  Meta-packages sound more like a
workaround to me.

> That approach might benefit to a user of Guix on top of a another
> distro not only with respect to $GUIX_LOCPATH.  I hope, to be able,
> for example, to read documentation of Guix-installed programs with
> /usr/bin/emacs or /usr/bin/info or even /usr/bin/tkinfo rather than
> emacs(1) / info(1) from Guix is a fairly reasonable wish, so having a
> package that only appends $INFOPATH would be nice.  ‘emacs’ and
> ‘texinfo’ packages would have it as propagated dependency.

Guix allows users to do that, but IMO we should not try to support this
use case—using /usr/bin/foo to access Guix-provided files—in Guix
proper, for at least one reason: there are many cases where it wouldn’t
work (PYTHONPATH, etc.).

>>> (By the way, ‘glibc-utf8-locales’ looks like a misnomer to me, on the
>>> first glance on it a user have nothing but to think that it comprises
>>> UTF-8 locales for all supported languages.)
>>
>> It is!  The manual clearly warns about it, saying that it’s “limited to
>> a few UTF-8 locales”:
>> <https://gnu.org/software/guix/manual/html_node/Application-Setup.html#Locales>.
>>
>> Note that the Guix 0.13.0 binary tarball comes with glibc-utf8-locales
>> and glibc, such that its etc/profile defines ‘GUIX_LOCPATH’.
>
> Excuse me?  I far as I understand, etc/profile is managed on
> per-profile (i. e. per-user) basis.  Thus $GUIX_LOCPATH is not
> exported until every user explicitly installs ‘glibc’ (along with all
> its bin/ldd, etc).  Or did I miss something?

No you’re right, this has to be done per-profile.  I was referring to
the profile that’s in the binary tarball.

Thanks for your feedback,
Ludo’.