Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 14:56:02 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Andrew Pantyukhin <infofarmer@FreeBSD.org> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <ports@freebsd.org>, Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> Subject: Re: Restricting (human) language and character set in /usr/ports Message-ID: <45A96382.3040407@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <cb5206420701131339s66f2b3f9s2924a55c429ef501@mail.gmail.com> References: <cb5206420701131101l21807993ld15c899e6754ec02@mail.gmail.com> <17833.15710.478810.6251@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <cb5206420701131339s66f2b3f9s2924a55c429ef501@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew Pantyukhin wrote:
> On 1/13/07, Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> wrote:
>>
>> Andrew Pantyukhin writes:
>>
>> > I'm not sure if there's a policy already, but it seems
>> > we have discussed this before.
>> >
>> > Can we limit /usr/ports (the whole ports collection) to
>> > English language and ASCII characters? This restriction
>> > should probably apply to all text data (with possible
>> > exception for patches).
>>
>> I don't follow this issue (much), so could you explain what's
>> broken about the /status quo/?
>
> It depends on what you mean by /status quo/, but in
> short, when I look at COMMENT, pkg-descr, pkg-message,
> comments in Makefile and other such text data, I
> expect to see English language and ASCII characters.
>
> There are ports that don't follow this expectation and
> I'd like to change that.
I'm not sure it's quite so cut and dry as that. For example, I think
it's probably reasonable for the /usr/ports/<language> ports to have
some non-ascii stuff to start with.
Is there a problem you're trying to solve here, or is this just a
matter of tidying things up a bit?
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45A96382.3040407>