Hi Diogo, Diogo Galvao wrote on Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:42:32PM -0300: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Marc Espie <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>>> Then there are a number of /pt_BR/ in addition to /pt/. >>> That looks suspicious, but i don't speak Portuguese, >>> so it may or may not make sense, i don't really know. >> I don't think BR makes sense, >> but I'll let portuguese/brazillians chime in. > Brazilian user chiming in: Thanks for explaining the situation. Given what was said so far, i think the best practice for /pt/ and /pt_BR/ is to simply install whatever upstream provides, under the name upstream provides: Deleting /pt_BR/ would be a bad idea because it's often better, deleting /pt/ would be a bad idea because that's our standard name (and possibly used as fallback in some situations), and renaming stuff would just cause confusion. Besides, we can't really expect port maintainers to judge whether /pt/ or /pt_BR/ is better maintained for any given port, and the relative quality may also change over time. Note that this also means less work for maintainers. Just installing what upstream provides is usually simplest, removing stuff often requires some additional "post-install: rm ..." target in the Makefile. So, that leaves us with the following rules of thumb in this respect: * install to /language/ if possible * never use an ".encoding" suffix * try hard to avoid "@variant" suffixes * usually avoid "_REGION" suffixes * exception: use /zh_CN/ and /zh_TW/, not /zh/ * exception: tolerate both /pt/ and /pt_BR/ * these are rules of thumb, not set in stone; if your port has special needs and you care, do whatever makes most sense for that port Yours, Ingo P.S. I don't see a need to complain about complaining. A question was asked and we got an answer containing useful information, thanks for that. Yes, the answer also contained a few sentences where the question was misunderstood, but no harm done. :)
