Bug#487874: Problem of duff words in myspell-en-gb is more widespread
Hi,
John Winters wrote:
> Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > John Winters wrote:
> >>>> I would suggest that the severity of this error needs increasing
> >>>> markedly, because the dictionary is useless with this many errors in it.
> >>> And what would you suggest? Remove the package? Revert to an ancient
> >>> version?
> > e> I thought it was perfectly clear what I was suggesting - escalating the
> >> severity because the package is seriously broken. If you want to go
> >
> > I know that you said that. But when we make it RC we have to fi in in
> > one way or another quickly. I'be just marked it as important.
> >
> >> further, and if it can't be determined how it was broken, then perhaps
> >> reverting to the last known good version would be the best bet. It's
> >> not after all that ancient.
The problem is that this would cause serious patching, as myspell-en-g
is built out of the OOo sources, which of course is at 2.4.0.
(openoffice.org-dictionaries is just a copy of the dictionaries/ module
of OpenOffice.org, nothing more).
In emergency, I can do that, yes, but I don't like that.
> > The point is that the last known version is 2.0.4. You don't really
> > suggest reverting to that?
>
> Well, yes. An old version which works is much better than a new version
> which is seriously broken.
Maybe, yes..
> > I try to find out
> > a) where the problem exactly is
>
> So ask clearly, and don't be inflammatory.
I waasn't. And to find out where the problem lies exactly I asked
whether it affects all packages using myspell-en-gb or just one.
Where was the flaming here please?
(Note that I am not a native en_* speaker)
> > b) when it appeared
> e
> Clearly given in the problem report.
No. "Somewhen between 2.0.4 and 2.4.0" was the version range. It's quite
broad.
But I've noted that, too.
> > c) what you suggested.
>
> Clearly given in the problem report.
Reverting to an ancient version, yes..
> > One more comment like that and that bug will loose severity from my
> > processing queue (not that it's that far up on it anyway, have other
> > important stuff to do in other packages). I tried to just acquire more
> > info..
>
> Oh dear - you clearly have far too much ego to be allowed to maintain
> packages. [...]
And too much work with more important ones before the freeze, yes..
> If you're going to do silly things like this then you can
> stew in your own juice. Don't expect any more help from me.
Well, if you react to simple questions to find out where the problem is
and to find out what the best fix is to badly, you should not be allowed
to report bugs - because replying with more info requests is common.
Regards,
Rene
Reply to: