Hi, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 10:58:11PM +0100, Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org> wrote: > > Mike Hommey wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 11:26:34AM +0100, Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org> wrote: > > > > There's no big difference in using hunspell and myspell, except that hunspell dictionaries > > > > then will also work. And you show that hunspell is used so the security team knows > > > > that mozilla needs to be rebuilt (which probably won't happen, no one ever found a security bug > > > > in either hunspell or myspell). And in any case, there's already enchant and openoffice.org building > > > > with static hunspell (openoffice.org does build far longer than ice*) > > > > > > How does the security team feel about having to rebuild iceape, > > > iceweasel, icedove (you forgot to file a bug on icedove), OOo and enchant > > > > No, that would have been my next target (the source already is on my > > disk) > > > > > if there happens to be a security bug in hunspell ? > > > > I am sure there won't be, but if it happens it happens. There's some > > static libs in Debian where this is the case, afaik. Of course. not having to > > do that is better, but... > > > > > How do buildds feel to have to rebuild iceape, iceweasel, icedove, OOo > > > and enchant for every hunspell upload ? > > > > You don't have to. > > So when you fix bugs in hunspell, you want to leave the bugs in the > programs that are statically linked to it. How great. Bullshit. You are intrepreting stuff everytime I didn't say. Not every fix in the package/packaging needs a rebuild, neither does a fix only affecting the hunspell program and not the library. In the library case, you're right. Gr�gards, Ren�- .''`. Ren�ngelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' rene@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature