[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#1020387: dictionaries-common: Consensus regarding the packaging of the Qt WebEngine hunspell binary dictionaries



Agustin,

On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 11:14:22 AM MST Agustin Martin wrote:
> I modified installdeb-myspell to look for both, with qt6 version
> preferred. In policy document, I commented about qt5 version
> existence, but discouraging its use as it will disappear sooner. In
> theory it could be useful for stable backports, but since .bdic sid
> version should be usable unchanged in stable there is no real use for
> it.

Your script does make it easier for packages to automatically migrate to the 
current qwebengine_convert_dict location on Qt migrations.  However, without a 
meta package or an unversioned package each Hunspell dictionary source package 
would need to update their build-depends.

This may not be too big a deal as Qt doesn’t switch versions often.  However, 
it seems to me that the ideal would be to have a stable build-depends package 
and even a stable binary execution path for those who either choose not to use 
the provided script or who cannot because they need to modify the files first to 
work around the current bugs with qwebengine_convert_dict not supporting 
certain valid input files.

> $ /usr/lib/qt6/libexec/qwebengine_convert_dict
> Usage: qwebengine_convert_dict <dic file> <bdic file>
> 
> Just put what usage note and associated example shows, it is supposed
> to be more "stable". Noticed that qwebengine_convert_dict seems to
> accept any of both (and look for the other). In theory, a dic file may
> have no associated aff file (and be a plain wordlist), but just
> checked that even that requires an empty aff file.

Good catch.  For some reason I thought the documentation said to use the .aff 
file, but I see now that it was just working around my not using it 
idiomatically.


-- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@stoutner.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: