Re: Bug#401969: please build using hunspell
On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 10:58:11PM +0100, Rene Engelhard <email@example.com> wrote:
> Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 11:26:34AM +0100, Rene Engelhard <firstname.lastname@example.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
> > 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.