Re: Bug#798085: ITP: hunspell-ca -- Catalan dictionaries for hunspell spellchecker

[Agustin Martin <agmartin@debian.org>]

2015-09-15 23:29 GMT+02:00 Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@mapreri.org>:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 06:16:14PM +0200, Agustin Martin wrote:
>> After Jordi suggestion I prepared an hunspell-ca package and just
>> uploaded it to NEW. When looking at NEW page I noticed that a
>> libreoffice-dictionaries package also containing hunspell-ca was
>> waiting there (missed its NEW message).
>>
>> I have browsed the sources and it seems to contain the same 3.0
>> version (upstream has released 3.1, but I packaged  first 3.0 to make
>> sure PTS stuff was working properly before upgrading to 3.1), although
>> I am not sure that it contains variants for both Catalonia and
>> Valencia (sources indeed contain both).
>>
>> What do you think is better to do?
>
> I think a dedicated package makes a lot of sense.  I don't know the
> policy used by TDF/LO for updating the dictionaries, but I believe you'd
> be able to follow them more properly.

Hi, Mattia, thanks for the quick reply,

> If you are OK with this I can just remove the hunspell-ca package from
> lo-dictionaries.

That is fine with me, thanks.

> (then this story will be funny because there are two packages in NEW
> providing the same binary.... Guess I need to ask somebody to process
> lo-dictionaries before yours, otherwise ours will overwrite yours and as
> a result your package will be decrufted :P)

Versions will not match, so I do not expect any overwriting here
because of full name+version collisions. May be some confusion when
Packages file is created (not sure if this will trigger an error) or
the binary package is searched for in places like the PTS, and also
the fact that lo-dictionaries package (currently 1:5.0.1+dfsg-1) will
be preferred over our hunspell-ca (3.0). But this will happen
regardless of the NEW processing ordering. I will need to add a 2:
epoch to properly take care of this.

Thanks for the feedback,

Regards,

-- 
Agustin