I think better 'pt_PT' but maybe it's redundant.
Can I change to pt_PT?
Daniel Pimentel (d4n1)
On 2017-08-06 22:21, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice wrote:
Daniel Pimentel wrote on 07/08/17 at 02:27:
Add new package aspell-dict-pt: gnu/packages/aspell.scm
Thanks! I went ahead and fixed up the commit message to match our
conventions (see your previous commit to aspell.scm as pushed by
Only one small question: the package uses simply ‘pt’ as the language
code, while <ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/aspell/dict/0index.html> uses
‘pt_PT’. Should we follow that example? Or is it needlessly redundant?
I know nothing of the linguistics or politics involved...