Re: RFS: aspell-kk
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: RFS: aspell-kk
- From: Timur Birsh <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 14:39:47 +0600
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20101124190512.GA10437@burratino>
Thanks for your reply.
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Has this dictionary been submitted to aspell upstream? I am guessing
> the patch tracker at  might be a good place to try.
> I'm not a DD so I can't upload your package, but here are a few
> . It seems this uses aspell 0.60 format. Shouldn't the package use
> Provides: aspell6-dictionary, then?
In Debian Spelling Dictionaries and Tools Policy I can't find any
information on it. Possibly there are another documents with guidelines on
the dictionaries packaging?
> . debian/rules could be made much simpler by using dh. Not a problem
> but it would make me happier to have less to read. :)
> (In that format, it becomes obvious what specific customizations a
> package has made to the usual sequence.)
I'm using debhelper to build a package.
> . Similarly, I wonder if debian/postinst and debian/postrm are needed.
> Won't debhelper set those up automatically?
AFAIK, "set -e" and "exit 0" are recommended to use in maintainer scripts by
> Cc-ing Mahyuddin Susanto, who is packaging an Indonesian aspell
> dictionary. Maybe you would have some advice for each other about
> aspell packaging policy (about which I know nothing).