On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 06:41:16PM +0200, Agustin Martin wrote:
> 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:
> > > 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.
>
> 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,
umh, isn't Conflicts needed in this case. They are just plain
incompatible in the current state of affairs.
> 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-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
Already got fixed, so the next upstream update will also ship an updated
hunspell dictionary.
I'll keep the conflicts, and ask him if I can take it over too.
I think I need to set up something to check for available updates of the
dictionaries in there, can't be so many updates, that way I can also
help keeping that big container of lo-dicts up-to-date.
> > > > > hunspell-pt_myspell-pt-br
> > >
> > > 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.
wooops, I meant a Provides: hunspell-pt-br ...
I do think a hunspell-pt package pulling hunspell-pt-pt and
hunspell-pt-br makes sense.
If you think the best place to hold such a metapackage is lo-dicts just
shut (=open a new bug) and I'd be happy to add it; it's cheap when you
have ~100 binaries anyway… ;)
> 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.
umh, do you mean it's own *source* package here?
so, what do you suggest now that there is a hunspell-pt-pt in lo-dicts?
> 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.
wait wat?
> Did not check, but you may also need to add some links in migrations,
ok, but to me it seems nothing in debian currently requires myspell, and
everything (within our archive) migrated to hunspell. What more is
holding us on just blinding stop providing myspell dictionaries (read it
as: dictionaries in the myspell directory?
Also, most of the myspell-* packages I saw where shipping files in the
hunspell directory, and the others were just symlink them to the myspell
dir.
What I'm silently trying to do this release cicle is to smooth the way
to remove all myspell-* packages duing buster, at least for those that
are de-facto unmaintained, aka the most of them.
I'm all for singular source packages for dicts, but they need to be
maintained (this is something valid for everything, but happens that
most of language stuff here partly abandoned. In fact except for the
dicts you maintain (!), most of the rest is de-facto orphaned; when I
looked at this situation I figured out the best way to improve it was to
get lo-dicts running well again).
> 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.
Indeed.
It's just that I won't write them manually for every single language
there is in lo-dicts, otherwise I can just go run crazy around my home
:)
--
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