Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
> I would like to propose a new ports category, i18n, it would become the new
> home, physical or virtual, for ports that are i18n or l10n based.
>
> While researching the topic, I found the two terms, i18n and l10n, are often
> used interchangeably, and while either word could be used as the new category
> name, I chose i18 because it seems to keep in line with the efforts of
> freebsd-i18n team.
While I (as an ignorant 'merican) would tend to agree with you that
the terms are close in meaning, my experience is that the people who
care about the differences _really_ care about them. Rather than have
FreeBSD appear to take a position on the debate I would suggest that
we use a term that is both neutral and more descriptive, like
"localization" or something similar.
That said I think that anything we can do to encourage localization as
a goal we should do.
> Currently in the ports tree there are about 220 ports with i18n or l10n as
> part of their package name. Of these ports 159 are in the misc category,
> virtually all of which are related to KDE or Qt.
>
> Should this new category come to being, the self identified ports in misc
> would get relocated. All other ports would simply be extended with the new
> virtual category name.
You've probably already covered this, but are you making a distinction
between ports that are used to _do_ localization-related tasks, and
ports that are localized versions of existing ports?
hth,
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
