On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:42:32PM -0300, Diogo Galvao wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Marc Espie <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Then there are a number of /pt_BR/ in addition to /pt/. > >> That looks suspicious, but i don't speak Portuguese, > >> so it may or may not make sense, i don't really know. > > > > I don't think BR makes sense, but I'll let portuguese/brazillians chime in. > > > > Brazilian user chiming in: we understand Portuguese from Portugal just > fine but some differences are quite evident to us, so we'd definitely > prefer a local version when available. > > I grepped ports for man/pt_BR and found only three that also have > man/pt, if I did it correctly:
> games/wesnoth: pt.po for manpages is much more complete and accurate > than pt_BR.po. Even if pt_BR inherits translations from pt.po when no > substitute is provided, some old translations seem just plain wrong. > If it were only for the language differences, I'd prefer the BR > variant as it sound more familiar. Not relevant .po is not a manpage. Like I said. > sysutils/deja-dup: there's a perl script to generate manpages from > --help options, so I couldn't really compare them without installing > the port. But judging from the .po files for the whole program, pt_BR > seems much more complete to a point where pt alone wouldn't suffice, > even for Portuguese users. > > x11/xfce4/terminal: there are some different words and spellings but > in general everything is the same, except that only pt_BR mentions > --color-table as a general option, as does man/C, so it's slightly > more in sync if we're nitpicking. > > I'm not sure these examples help to decide on the proposed rule 5 for > pt_BR, but I'd say that if upstream took the time to provide language > variants of manpages, then users of those languages may benefit from > them. It corresponds to what sthen said, that it's likely _BR is better maintained, so we should prefer it.
