Re: Bug#1020387: dictionaries-common: Consensus regarding the packaging of the Qt WebEngine hunspell binary dictionaries
El jue, 3 nov 2022 a las 23:33, Soren Stoutner (<soren@stoutner.com>) escribió:
>
> On Friday, October 28, 2022 4:09:45 AM MST Agustin Martin wrote:
> > I am not particularly happy about this (see details below), but seems
> > we will have to package all these .bdic files because qtwebengine and
> > chromium use them. Since some .bdic may fail to build I would rather
> > prefer them to be generated during package creation, where it is
> > easier not to create them if required. If done during package install
> > I think everything should be handled from qtwebengine package. In this
> > case some fine tuning can be done to improve efficiency (handling
> > symlinks better, regenerate only when a new version of dict package is
> > installed or incompatibilities in qtwebengine hunspell appear, ...)
>
> I agree with you. I am also unhappy that Chromium and QtWebEngine want to use
> a specialized file format instead of just using the standard Hunspell files.
> However, as much as I don’t like it, I also agree with you that the best thing
> Debian can do in the short term is to move forward with the packaging of these
> .bdic files while we wait to see if we can make any changes upstream.
>
> Given that nobody else responded to this question, I think there is a
> consensus that it is best to create the .bdic files during package creation.
>
> The next question that needs to be answered is if we should create new binary
> packages for the .bdic files or if we should ship them as part of the existing
> Hunspell language binary packages. The opinions that have been expressed so
> far have run the gamut on both sides, but my sense is they lean a little
> towards shipping them in the existing Hunspell packages so as to not add 80+
> new packages to Debian that only contain a few files each.
>
> Is there anyone who feels strongly that they should not be shipped in the
> existing files?
Hi,
I am for the approach that causes as little annoyance as possible to
the Debian archive, and I think that is using current packages. This
way we do not bother ftpmasters with all these new packages that might
be temporary.
I would personally expect this to be temporary until someone with the
appropiate skills provides a patch to make qtwebengine use system
hunspell in Debian (as has already been done for other libs in Debian
qtwebengine). I looked at the embedded hunspell code, but I am far
from having those skills, so got no result.
Also note that https://github.com/sheremetyev/hunspell seems to be
based in a 10 years old fork of hunspell. I hope hunspell code in
chromium and qtwebengine is not 10 years old and hunspell upstream has
been tracked for updates (at least for security updates). I have done
a quick comparison and they are not exactly the same, and not only
cosmetically, but did not go further.
It is to note that even that 10 years code apparently has support for
the IGNORE flag, unsupported by the .bdic dicts. Fortunately, seems
that there are not many dicts using that flag in
libreoffice-dictionaries.
libreoffice-dictionaries-7.4.2$ grep -r IGNORE *
dictionaries/bo/bo.aff:IGNORE ༵༷
dictionaries/ar/ar.aff:IGNORE ًٌٍَُِّْـٰ
dictionaries/uk_UA/uk_UA.aff:IGNORE ́
dictionaries/ckb/dictionaries/ckb.aff:IGNORE ًٌٍَُِّْـٰ١٢٣٤۴٥۵٦۶٧٨٩٠
dictionaries/hu_HU/hu_HU.aff:IGNORE ()]
Reply to: