![]() |
|
Message-ID: <CAA-4+jcpfOXoYx1g_48M0B7punK7r2AOU7YU-V_pdQNGYcFmng@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 13:23:41 +0900 From: Masanori Ogino <masanori.ogino@...il.com> To: Daiki Ueno <ueno@....org> Cc: bug-gnu-gettext@....org, musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [bug-gettext] AM_GNU_GETTEXT without referring internal symbols? Thank you for your reply, Daiki. 2016-04-04 11:23 GMT+09:00 Daiki Ueno <ueno@....org>: > Hello, > > Masanori Ogino <masanori.ogino@...il.com> writes: > >> Now AM_GNU_GETTEXT uses _nl_msg_cat_cntr and _nl_expand_alias to check >> whether the implementation is compatible with GNU gettext. However, >> the symbols don't appear in libintl.h so it seems that they are not >> part of the public API. >> >> Actually, musl libc implements libintl features and the score of >> gettext-tools' testsuite is equal to that with the internal libintl, >> using a modified AM_GNU_GETTEXT. >> >> The musl's libintl.h even defines __USE_GNU_GETTEXT and >> __GNU_GETTEXT_SUPPORTED_REVISION, but it does not imitate private >> symbols. >> >> I had checked the archive and I've found some discussions: >> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-utils/2006-03/msg00011.html >> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gettext/2015-11/msg00015.html >> >> So, if the goal of the macro is check if the implementation is >> compatible with GNU gettext, why don't we check the public API rather >> than using internal symbols? Is it possible to check if the >> implementation is not one of known "broken" implementations and/or it >> is really compatible? > > I agree that it would be desirable, but doubt that it is possible (at > least reliably), because: > > - For some reason, there is no public API to directly load arbitrary MO > files and we need to mimic the behavior of translated applications: > prepare a directory structure (e.g. DIR/fr/domain.mo), call > bindtextdomain() for the directory, and finally call gettext(). > > - That requires that at least one non-POSIX locale is available on the > system, to pick the translation. However, even if the system is glibc > based, not all locales might be available thanks to sub-packaging > (Fedora) or user configuration (Debian). OK, I understood now. > So I suppose the only feasible option here is to somehow whitelist the > implementations by checking macros or symbols. Does musl provides > anything like that[1]? No, it doesn't on purpose. Here is the entry on this topic in the FAQ: http://wiki.musl-libc.org/wiki/FAQ#Q:_why_is_there_no_MUSL_macro_.3F Also, I'd like to point out some detailed explanations in a recent discussion: http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2016/03/23/6 http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2016/03/23/7 http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2016/03/23/9 That is why I proposed to have a blacklist of "broken" implementations as an option. AFAIK there have already been some blacklisting in autotools e.g. checking the version of glibc to reject specific broken implementation of a function. Thus, I think it's acceptable to use a blacklist. What do you think about it? -- Masanori Ogino
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.