X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <4E8B0007.5020500@cwilson.fastmail.fm>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 08:45:59 -0400
From: Charles Wilson <cygwin AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: cygwin started speaking German today
References: <7856072A9D04C24B82DFE2B1112FE38A0C27492B56 AT MCHP058A DOT global-ad DOT net> <201109081246 DOT 23238 DOT bruno AT clisp DOT org> <4E68AF35 DOT 9030002 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> <201109082344 DOT 55506 DOT bruno AT clisp DOT org> <4E69D9EA DOT 2050004 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm> <CAHWeT-bQ=Qm7qyWzb9s-=Lfgwjh-vHrEk2BvYQS6X6707+EWMg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <20110909145921 DOT GA27289 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <4E6F7AA1 DOT 4090808 AT redhat DOT com> <20111004122837 DOT GA27229 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
In-Reply-To: <20111004122837.GA27229@calimero.vinschen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On 10/4/2011 8:28 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Sep 13 09:45, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Given this, I think the bug is in cygwin for having base files
>> /etc/profile.d/lang.{sh,csh} which hardcode LANG to C.UTF-8 instead
>> of using locale -s -u to default LANG to the preferred Windows
>> settings.
> 
> Bug?  Didn't we choose C.UTF-8 after a long discussion?  Are the points
> raised in this discussion invalid or outdated now?  Why?  I don't object
> against using `locale -sU' in lang.sh/lang.csh, but we should not do
> this without a discussion of the pros and cons.

IIRC, that discussion occurred before the 'locale' application (was
written|got smarter).  Sure, I think C.UTF-8 should be the "default
default" but the arguments in favor of respecting the users' own Windows
i18n settings make sense.

However, one issue is that windows basically will always have SOME
setting -- even if just "English".  Which would cause locale to report
'en_US' or something.  So you'd never actually SEE the "default default"
of C.UTF-8 take effect.  Also, would locale append '.UTF-8' (or would
lang.{sh,csh} do so?).

Maybe we should start a new thread on this topic, listing the pros and
cons as Corinna suggested.  Who wants to summarize the "con" side of the
argument?

--
Chuck

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple