On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 06:55:07AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote: > On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 02:39:03PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > I seriously object to this. I do not think that forking all packages in > > Debian and creating -jp-package is the right way to go. What should be > > done is submit patches to the maintainers, preferably both Debian and > > upstream. What I was hoping to see with the integration of Debian-JP > > is that all the multibyte patches would be *integrated* with Debian, > > not a senseless forking of lots of packages. [...] > Just for the sake of this coming full circle and not leaving wichert out > to make this statement all on his own, I want to say I fully agree. Hear, hear. We're going to have a hard enough time getting the package descriptions of (most of) the -ja packages rewritten to be both comprehensible and informative, without more and more being piled on every day. And just so this is addressed now, the proper suffix for "Japanized" packages is "-ja", not "-jp". JP is the ISO country code for Japan, whereas "ja" is the language code for Japanese. All Japanized packages of which I am aware bear that moniker because they are enhanced to support the Japanese language, not the geographic entity of Japan. If any packages bear the "-jp" suffix, we should rename them now before they get released that way. -- G. Branden Robinson | You don't just decide to break Kubrick's Debian GNU/Linux | code of silence and then get drawn away branden@ecn.purdue.edu | from it to a discussion about cough cartoon.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ | medicine.
Attachment:
pgpVd1PNBm7cq.pgp
Description: PGP signature