Doug Barton wrote: > > 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?
I think that this is an important distinction; and personally I would expect only the previous ports to go into this category. That is, putting ports into categories primarily based on the functionality of a port. For example when looking for a port like firefox-i18n, I'd expect to find it in the www/ category, rather than an i18n/ subdir. But ports like gettext or other localization tools could be in the i18n category. Ciao, Johan
pgpX6HsiUbOha.pgp
Description: PGP signature
