Hi Frans, [ Frans Spiesschaert, 2021-03-18 ] > Holger Levsen schreef op do 18-03-2021 om 16:06 [+0000]: > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 04:36:56PM +0100, Wolfgang Schweer wrote: > > [....] > > > This is one translator's report of an agreement found elsewhere. > > > > thanks for your nice summary of the situation, Wolfgang! > > > > > In Debian, only two Portuguese related locales are available, pt_PT > > > and > > > pt_BR; run 'dpkg-reconfigure locales' to verify it. [...] > > > > see above ;) > > > > > No, there's only European Portuguese in two flavours, for Brasilian > > > Portuguese there's only a file (without any translation) for the > > > Buster > > > manual. > > > > ah, thanks for clarifying. so debian-edu-doc-pt-pt it is. > > > Sorry for this late reply, but during the day I am often not available > > Did you also took into account > https://lists.debian.org/debian-edu/2021/03/msg00059.html ?
No, that email showed up later and pt was a clone of pt-pt at that time. Don't know the current state, though. > As far as I understand 2 Portuguese versions are to be expected at > hosted weblate: pt-pt and pt, where pt-pt is aimed at Portuguese in > Portugal ad pt at Portuguese in Angola, Moçambique and others (except > Brazil). Both are European Portuguese, one with recent orthography (pt-pt) the other one (pt) with ancient one. From a Debian package naming convention standpoint, it would make no sense to ship both debian-edu-doc-pt-pt and debian-edu-doc-pt, because both pt and pt-pt are considered the same (European Portuguese). As far as I can tell, some maintainers choose pt, others pt-pt for whatever reason. According to José, the »difference between pt and pt-PT is not big«. So I'm just wondering if two versions would make sense. Anyway: if the translation using ancient orthography is considered to be necessary, question is how to ship it. Wolfgang
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
