Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:07:53 +0200 From: Johan van Selst <johans@stack.nl> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Thomas Abthorpe <tabthorpe@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [RFC] New category proposal, i18n Message-ID: <20090619070753.GA71673@mud.stack.nl> In-Reply-To: <4A3B3524.7090606@FreeBSD.org> References: <200906181114.43935.tabthorpe@freebsd.org> <4A3B3524.7090606@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Kj7319i9nmIyA2yE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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 --Kj7319i9nmIyA2yE Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREIAAYFAko7OUkACgkQaOElK32lxTsimwCgxqWr9XwbGGsjniNc+dQxeits tHEAmgPcYofdOMO6nU1iJqYsTkY/2Fhx =evu/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Kj7319i9nmIyA2yE--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090619070753.GA71673>