The l10n_en-GB flag does the same as its generic l10n_en counterpart (namely, it pulls in dev-texlive/texlive-langenglish as dependency). It is therefore redundant and should be removed. (This appears to be a remnant of the separate texlive-langukenglish package, which was last included with TL 2009.)
I'm not against merging those flags but keep in mind that the idea here is not to provide a single useflag for each lang support package, but rather that whatever l10n you have enabled, the ebuild will pull the proper package to give you support for that. With your proposed change, l10n_en-GB enabled and l10n_en disabled wont pull the proper package anymore. What's at stance here is if whether we assume l10n_en-GB implies l10n_en or not.
Presumably, l10n_en-GB (or rather linguas_en_GB from which it was converted) wouldn't have been added if it wasn't for the former texlive-langukenglish package. Plus, en-GB is the only language here that uses a subtag (e.g., there is no en-US, fr-CA, or de-DE). Generally, I would expect users to include the generic tag "en" along with any specific tags like "en-GB" in their L10N setting (which maybe should be documented better). Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion about this. Feel free to close this bug as invalid.
I just noticed that there's also this (same package twice): l10n_af? ( >=${TEXLIVE_CAT}/texlive-langother-${PV} >=${TEXLIVE_CAT}/texlive-langother-${PV} )
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #2) > Presumably, l10n_en-GB (or rather linguas_en_GB from which it was converted) > wouldn't have been added if it wasn't for the former texlive-langukenglish > package. > > Plus, en-GB is the only language here that uses a subtag (e.g., there is no > en-US, fr-CA, or de-DE). Generally, I would expect users to include the > generic tag "en" along with any specific tags like "en-GB" in their L10N > setting (which maybe should be documented better). > > Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion about this. Feel free to close this > bug as invalid. I don't have a strong opinion either and to me this boils down to l10n definitions for which you'd be the one I'd refer to anyway, so feel free to change to what you feel is best.
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=06c23da590777c43e643710330b34d298735e59f commit 06c23da590777c43e643710330b34d298735e59f Author: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2018-03-27 07:25:09 +0000 Commit: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2018-03-27 07:25:09 +0000 app-text/texlive: Drop redundant en-GB from L10N. It has the same effect as the generic en. Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/651554 Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.24, Repoman-2.3.6 app-text/texlive/texlive-2017.ebuild | 10 ++++------ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
