From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com> Subject: bug#27244: Should not $GUIX_LOCPATH belong to =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=98glibc-locales=E2=80=99?= rather than =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=98glibc=E2=80=99=3F?= Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2017 04:33:09 +0300 Message-ID: <87zidl294a.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87shjf8abx.fsf@gmail.com> <87inka9nk4.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43118) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dI3Nm-0002Y4-0O for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Jun 2017 21:34:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dI3Ni-0002ZD-Tb for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Jun 2017 21:34:06 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:55655) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dI3Ni-0002Z2-Pw for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Jun 2017 21:34:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dI3Ni-0000GD-Ax for bug-guix@gnu.org; Mon, 05 Jun 2017 21:34:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87inka9nk4.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic \=\?utf-8\?Q\?Court\=C3\=A8s\=22'\?\= \=\?utf-8\?Q\?s\?\= message of "Mon, 05 Jun 2017 22:39:23 +0200") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: Dmitry Alexandrov <321942@gmail.com>, 27244@debbugs.gnu.org >> 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: . 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?)