Friday will be one week for the topic, at which point I will take on the next leg of the battle, which is making the pitch to portmgr.
Thomas On 25/06/2009, Mark Foster <[email protected]> wrote: > [email protected] wrote: >>>> If i18n is too cryptic or too alphanumeric, and >>>> internationalization is too long, why not go with "nls"? >>>> >>> I personally think that nls is equally as cryptic as i18n or l10n. >>> >> >> Anyone care for "intlzn"? It's short, should still tab-complete >> from "in", and it may be a bit less cryptic than nls, i18n, or l10n. >> > If I may be so bold as to present a democratic outcome. > To help settle the matter please vote on this issue within 48 hours. > <http://www.micropoll.com/akira/mpview/615850-178803> > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]" > -- Sent from my mobile device Thomas Abthorpe, FreeBSD Ports Committer [email protected], http://people.freebsd.org/~tabthorpe _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
