Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:24:39 +0800 From: Jing-Tang Keith Jang <keith@bsdvm.jtjang.idv.tw> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Something about ports/chinese Message-ID: <20001103132438.A30780@bsdvm.jtjang.idv.tw> In-Reply-To: <20001102131905.A13389@peorth.iteration.net>; from keichii@iteration.net on Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 01:19:05PM -0600 References: <20001102144635.B5169@bsdvm.jtjang.idv.tw> <20001102010730.B9753@peorth.iteration.net> <20001102173543.A5967@bsdvm.jtjang.idv.tw> <20001102131905.A13389@peorth.iteration.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/02/00, Michael C . Wu wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 02, 2000 at 05:35:43PM +0800, Jing-Tang Keith Jang scribbled:
> | The second reason was that we didn't like the way ports/{japanese,korean}
> | goes. I really admire and appreciate the pioneer I18N work by these groups,
> | and often sees them as my best references. But it's also true that the
> | port layout is mixed in the worst case. There are no j/x11* or j/print,
>
> I am afraid that the Japanese and Korean guys are doing this the best
> way that I can think of.
Definitely, that's why ports/chinese is going this way, too.
Maybe cvsup's refuse is sufficient for most of non-CJK users. :-)
> (Btw, I know what you meant by "didn't like the way ports/{j,k} goes",
> but I think we should not say "don't like." It is more of "we do not
> agree," and probably conveys your meaning better than "we don't like."
Yes, you're right. I apologize for the wrong expressions.
> So we are agreed then. 8-)
Of course. :-) Maybe we can make a list of which should be imported.
> A good example of how we took from ports/japanese is chinese/big5con
> from japanese/kons25.
Not to mention the coming Ghostscript+VFlib. :-)
--
Keep it simple and stupid.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001103132438.A30780>