Bug#799440: myspell-* and hunspell-*: error when trying to install together
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 03:33:16PM +0000, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> 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.
Hi, Mattia
I also think that is a better approach.
In the meantime I have also uploaded some of the dicts I'm involved with,
including additional Breaks even if hunspell package is not yet available,
myspell-da: Breaks hunspell-da
myspell-eo: Breaks hunspell-eo
myspell-es: Breaks hunspell-es
myspell-et: Breaks hunspell-et and hyphen-et
myspell-fo: Breaks hunspell-fo
myspell-lv: Breaks hunspell-lv and hyphen-lv
myspell-tl: Breaks hunspell-tl
> > > 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.
Fine, just do not forget to try contacting maintainer first,
> > > > 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)
Thanks, fine. As written above, I also made myspell-et break hunspell-et
and hyphen-et.
> > > > 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?
In the meantime, I am adding that dependency. However, note that this is
handled differently for aspell and old myspell.
For myspell, myspell-pt is a dependency package that will pull both
myspell-pt-br and myspell-pt-pt. Similar thing for aspell. I wonder if
something like this may be useful for hunspell-pt.
Where those transitional packages appear is a bit chaotic, for aspell there
is an standalone aspell-pt source package that will pull both and for
myspell it ts in myspell.pt sources (European portuguese).
> > > > 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).
It is OK, is hunspell-pt-pt the one that deserves its own package. In this
case, upstream is the same for both myspell-pt-pt and hunspell-pt-pt, so
I'd expect the change to be smooth and something we can do soon. Just allow
a minimal testing of hunspell-pt-pt in real life.
In other cases like myspell-es vs hunspell-es, upstreams are different and
in the meantime, I'd prefer to wait a bit more having two conflicting
alternatives available.
Did not check, but you may also need to add some links in migrations,
hunspell fallback dictionary selection still needs implementation (Rene,
at some time I will open a wishlist bug against hunspell so the info I
have can be found in a common location). Fortunately, libreoffice seems
to handle that internally.
Regards,
--
Agustin
Reply to: