Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /etc/locale vs /etc/env.d/02locale?
On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 02:46:45AM +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote Have you tried localepurge? A couple of notes/questions... 1) localepurge deletes the contents of subfolders in /usr/share/locale but leaves the empty subfolders present. Is it OK to delete the empty subfolders? 2) I notice that localepurge did *NOT* delete the contents of LC_MESSAGES in the following subfolders... ast be@latin ca@valencia crh dz en@shaw io kg km lg mai mg my nds si sr@latin uz@cyrillic -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /etc/locale vs /etc/env.d/02locale?
On Sunday 19 June 2011 21:46:05 Walter Dnes wrote: 1) localepurge deletes the contents of subfolders in /usr/share/locale but leaves the empty subfolders present. Is it OK to delete the empty subfolders? I assume so, though I haven't bothered. Why not try it and see? 2) I notice that localepurge did *NOT* delete the contents of LC_MESSAGES in the following subfolders... ast be@latin ca@valencia crh dz en@shaw io kg km lg mai mg my nds si sr@latin uz@cyrillic Those don't look like locale names to me: uz@cyrillic? What locale is that? Or en@shaw? Who is shaw? Those two at least don't exist on my system. -- Rgds Peter
[gentoo-user] Re: /etc/locale vs /etc/env.d/02locale?
On 06/17/2011 06:46 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote: On Saturday 18 June 2011 01:50:12 walt wrote: I've tried to prevent the installation of many many unneeded megabytes of translation files in /usr/share/locale/* but I've never succeeded. Have you tried localepurge? I just did, and thanks for the hint :)
[gentoo-user] Re: /etc/locale vs /etc/env.d/02locale?
On 06/16/2011 12:00 PM, Paul Hartman wrote: On my personal system, I only install the US-English locales because I know I'm never going to use any of the others. Me too -- or maybe I should say moi aussi. I've tried to prevent the installation of many many unneeded megabytes of translation files in /usr/share/locale/* but I've never succeeded. ATM I have 101MB of *.mo translation files in /usr/share/locale even though I deleted all of them less than a month ago. I unset the 'nls' useflag in the hope it would solve the problem, but no joy. #env | grep L.NG LINGUAS= ALL_LINGUAS= LANG=en_US.UTF8 LANGUAGE=en_US.UTF8 #locale LANG=en_US.UTF8 LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF8 LC_NUMERIC=en_US.UTF8 LC_TIME=en_US.UTF8 LC_COLLATE=C LC_MONETARY=en_US.UTF8 LC_MESSAGES=en_US.UTF8 LC_PAPER=en_US.UTF8 LC_NAME=en_US.UTF8 LC_ADDRESS=en_US.UTF8 LC_TELEPHONE=en_US.UTF8 LC_MEASUREMENT=en_US.UTF8 LC_IDENTIFICATION=en_US.UTF8 LC_ALL= Please apply cluestick with vigor... Thanks.
[gentoo-user] Re: /etc/locale vs /etc/env.d/02locale?
On 06/18/2011 03:50 AM, walt wrote: On 06/16/2011 12:00 PM, Paul Hartman wrote: On my personal system, I only install the US-English locales because I know I'm never going to use any of the others. Me too -- or maybe I should say moi aussi. I've tried to prevent the installation of many many unneeded megabytes of translation files in /usr/share/locale/* but I've never succeeded. ATM I have 101MB of *.mo translation files in /usr/share/locale even though I deleted all of them less than a month ago. I unset the 'nls' useflag in the hope it would solve the problem, but no joy. Unfortunately, many ebuilds go ahead and install translation files anyway. Developers seem to ignore this if a package only installs one or two additional files. For example, see this patch I submitted once: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=275980 It's not the end of the world, but I guess what the devs are missing is that one file here, one there, it adds up in the end.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /etc/locale vs /etc/env.d/02locale?
On Saturday 18 June 2011 01:50:12 walt wrote: I've tried to prevent the installation of many many unneeded megabytes of translation files in /usr/share/locale/* but I've never succeeded. ATM I have 101MB of *.mo translation files in /usr/share/locale even though I deleted all of them less than a month ago. I unset the 'nls' useflag in the hope it would solve the problem, but no joy. Have you tried localepurge? -- Rgds Peter
[gentoo-user] Re: /etc/locale vs /etc/env.d/02locale?
On 06/16/2011 06:45 PM, Mark Knecht wrote: Is there a simple explanation concerning the difference between the two locales I have seen on Gentoo machines? 1) /etc/locale, as specified in the installation documents 2) /etc/env.d/02locale as has been discussed on the list recently There is no /etc/locale. I assume you mean /etc/locale.gen. That one only contains the locales for glibc. You should not specify env vars there. You only list raw locales. Mine for example has these contents: en_US ISO-8859-1 en_US.UTF-8 UTF-8 /etc/env.d/02locale is of a different format. It's executed as a script, so you set your locale-specific env vars there. You only need LANG actually, and possibly LC_COLLATE. The whole contents of mine: LANG=en_US.UTF-8 LC_COLLATE=C
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /etc/locale vs /etc/env.d/02locale?
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Nikos Chantziaras rea...@arcor.de wrote: On 06/16/2011 06:45 PM, Mark Knecht wrote: Is there a simple explanation concerning the difference between the two locales I have seen on Gentoo machines? 1) /etc/locale, as specified in the installation documents 2) /etc/env.d/02locale as has been discussed on the list recently There is no /etc/locale. I assume you mean /etc/locale.gen. I did. thanks. That one only contains the locales for glibc. You should not specify env vars there. You only list raw locales. Mine for example has these contents: en_US ISO-8859-1 en_US.UTF-8 UTF-8 As does mine. /etc/env.d/02locale is of a different format. It's executed as a script, so you set your locale-specific env vars there. You only need LANG actually, and possibly LC_COLLATE. The whole contents of mine: LANG=en_US.UTF-8 LC_COLLATE=C I had the first line but not the second which I've added. I think the root of my question is really the (possibly) unfortunately use of the word 'locale' for the glibc stuff. I understand the concept of locales for the system and users, but why does glibc need locales which are possibly different from those in use on a system by users? I can make up reasons, like someone from Japan logs into my server to do work and needs something to use Japanese locales, but he could likely set those up in .bashrc or something. What is glibc doing with them? Thanks, Mark
[gentoo-user] Re: /etc/locale vs /etc/env.d/02locale?
On 06/16/2011 07:23 PM, Mark Knecht wrote: On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Mark Knechtmarkkne...@gmail.com wrote: Is there a simple explanation concerning the difference between the two locales I have seen on Gentoo machines? 1) /etc/locale, as specified in the installation documents 2) /etc/env.d/02locale as has been discussed on the list recently I'm not near a Gentoo machine right now, but off the top of my head IIRC: /etc/locale.gen contains a list of locales to be compiled when glibc is emerged. These will be available to be used. /etc/env.d/02locale specifies which of those locales you actually want to use for the system-wide default (the LC variables) Thanks for the response Paul. Does that mean that the /etc/locale.gen is used only by glibc and not really by the system? If so, what is glibc doing with these beyond letting me system run programs? It allows you to have locales to use in /etc/env.d/02locale ;-) If you want to set LANG=en_US.UTF-8 in 02locale, you of course need the files for that specific locale/encoding. To get them, you need to write en_US.UTF-8 UTF-8 in locale.gen. Not sure why you're not getting the comments in your locale.gen, but here there are, at the top of the file: # /etc/locale.gen: list all of the locales you want to have on your system # # The format of each line: # locale charmap # # Where locale is a locale located in /usr/share/i18n/locales/ and # where charmap is a charmap located in /usr/share/i18n/charmaps/. # # All blank lines and lines starting with # are ignored. # # For the default list of supported combinations, see the file: # /usr/share/i18n/SUPPORTED # # Whenever glibc is emerged, the locales listed here will be automatically # rebuilt for you. After updating this file, you can simply run `locale-gen` # yourself instead of re-emerging glibc.
[gentoo-user] Re: /etc/locale vs /etc/env.d/02locale?
On 06/16/2011 07:45 PM, Mark Knecht wrote: I think the root of my question is really the (possibly) unfortunately use of the word 'locale' for the glibc stuff. locale.gen looks a bit cryptic, but the gen refers to generating locales. To have locales available for use, they need to be generated first.
