Re: Bug#1020387: dictionaries-common: Consensus regarding the packaging of the Qt WebEngine hunspell binary dictionaries
El mar, 25 oct 2022 a las 20:43, Soren Stoutner (<soren@stoutner.com>) escribió:
>
> While we wait for answers as to whether these dictionaries can be used by the
> Chromium package and how they might possibly be integrated with upstream
> Hunspell, I would recommend that we move forward with packaging them in /usr/
> share/hunspell-bdic. This location provides flexibility for whatever ends up
> happening with upstream Hunspell and Chromium.
>
> The question at this point is if they should be generated at package creation
> or if they should be generated during install. It appears that the majority
> leans towards generating them at package creation. Is there anyone who feels
> strongly the other way?
Hi all,
I am not particularly happy about this (see details below), but seems
we will have to package all these .bdic files because qtwebengine and
chromium use them. Since some .bdic may fail to build I would rather
prefer them to be generated during package creation, where it is
easier not to create them if required. If done during package install
I think everything should be handled from qtwebengine package. In this
case some fine tuning can be done to improve efficiency (handling
symlinks better, regenerate only when a new version of dict package is
installed or incompatibilities in qtwebengine hunspell appear, ...)
Why I am not that happy about these .bdic files? Looking at
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/deps/hunspell_dictionaries/+/refs/heads/main/README.chromium
and https://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/developers/how-tos/editing-the-spell-checking-dictionaries
the only reasons for this seem to be support for delta files, where
"The .dic_delta files are used to add words which are not there in the
.dic files" and having everything UTF-8. Correct me if I am wrong.
Packaging all possible hunspell dicts in .bdic format will in practice
not be useful to support delta files as originally intended, since
original hunspell dict will be used. Debian maintainer could use a
delta file for Debian changes in poorly maintained dicts, but I think
that in this case they should better patch original .dic file to make
the fix available to all hunspell users.
Another thing I do not like is to have three copies of hunspell flying
around, original hunspell lib and those embedded in chromium and
qtwebengine. This makes harder to keep everything synced.
I agree that that the best would to extend hunspell, but to support
.dic_delta files instead of changing it to use bdic format. Part of
the code may even be reusable to support something like aspell .multi
files.
Regards,
--
Agustin
https://github.com/sheremetyev/hunspell
>
> --
> Soren Stoutner
> soren@stoutner.com
Reply to: