On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 01:23:39PM +0200, Agustin Martin wrote:
Thanks for your email here!
Given that you are involved with several packages with dicts you find
your input here important and valuable :)
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 01:40:52PM +0000, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
After my email Rene suggested me to add Conflicts in most of the cases,
instead of dropping every problematic binary, and a package with them
has already been uploaded, currently in NEW.
> > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:45:04AM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > > hunspell-hrr_myspell-hr
> >
> > Here there is a typo: hrr → hr. I corrected it, but I'll just ignore
> > the conseguences since this package existed only for one day...
> > (it fits in the section below)
>
> These also contain the same patterns and words. Seems OK to disable it in
> lo-dicts.
I disabled hyphen-hr, but kept hunspell-hr, conflicting with myspell-hr.
The last maintainer upload was in 2009, with 3 (the number 2 seems to
have been lost somewhere...) different, quite large NMUs and a really
simple bug is sitting in the BTS.
I'd rather just take over everything, tbh.
> > > hunspell-el_myspell-el-gr
>
> Same aff file in current versions, so it is indeed a myspell dict. dic
> files are different, but I cannot really compare. lo dict seems however,
> based in an old 0.7 version, while myspell-el-gr contains 0.8 (and there is
> a 0.9 upstream version waiting). Seems OK to disable it in lo-dicts.
Oh, this one was last uploaded in 2012, the maintainer is not gone at
least (I see an upload from him in 2014-10), the 0.9 seems to be from
2015-03-14. I opened a bug at TDF [0] to update the dictionaries there.
Anyway, there is a Conflicts: in place there too.
[0] https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94415
> > > hunspell-et_myspell-et.
>
> Same contents in both. OK to disable it in lo-dicts.
This one is really up-to-date and maintained, and actually it Provides:
hunspell-et.
I think it's sane/wise to disable it in our part (done in git)
>
> > > hunspell-pt_myspell-pt-br
>
> BTW, shouldn't hunspell-pt be hunspell-pt-br?
Itt should. The very same way pt-pt is named pt-pt (annoying, this
means another NEW trip...)
> Both hunspell-pt and myspell-pt-br contain exactly the same dictionary (just
> version string in aff file is changed). I am adding a break in myspell-pt-br
> against any hunspell-pt-br (not yet hunspell-pt), but I think it is OK to
> disable hunspell-pt for now.
would you add a Provides: hunspell-pt at least?
> > > hunspell-pt-pt_myspell-pt-pt
>
> hunspell-pt-pt dictionary here is an hunspell-only dictionary, so it
> deserves it's own package. I will add a break against hunspell-pt-pt in
> myspell-pt-pt 20091013-10, but I think hunspell-pt-pt should stay, but
> conflicting with myspell-pt-pt (<=20091013-10) and replacing it. Once it
> is minimaly tested in Debian I can make myspell-pt-pt a transitional
> package to ensure a smooth transition to hunspell-pt-pt.
nice!
Currently there is naked "Conflicts: myspell-pt-pt" (i.e. unversioned).
Though your paragraph here sounds awkward: does myspell-pt-pt deserve or
not its own package? :) (I belive you missed a "don't" in the second
line).
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: http://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature