From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 19 06:50:15 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA787106566C for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 06:50:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E8CA8FC13 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 06:50:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 13696 invoked by uid 399); 19 Jun 2009 06:50:13 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO foreign.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 19 Jun 2009 06:50:13 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4A3B3524.7090606@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 23:50:12 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090423) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Abthorpe References: <200906181114.43935.tabthorpe@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200906181114.43935.tabthorpe@freebsd.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [RFC] New category proposal, i18n X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 06:50:15 -0000 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