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

Bug#487732: O: ispell (or maybe RM: ispell?)

On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 08:08:53AM +0200, Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> > How about removing this obsolete package instead of just orphaning it? I 
> > say "obsolete" because it didn't adapt to the fact that UTF-8 is the 
> > preferred character encoding nowadays, and better replacements exist 
> > (e.g., "aspell -i"). See also #469016.
> the version of ispell in debian is quite outdated ( vs. 3.3.02),
> afaik ispell handles now UTF-8 properly. however..
> > Yes, I know about the huge list of reverse dependencies.
> ...ack, we should just remove ispell right after lenny.

IIRC, none of aspell or hunspell can handle pseudo-charsets like 'a or TeX
explicit chars \'a, \'{a}, while ispell can, if the aff file has  them
declared, so there is no full replacement for ispell.

Instead of removing ispell I would consider making ispell and ispell dicts
priority extra instead of optional. Note that iamerican, ispell and ibritish
have now the wrong standard priority (all them should already be optional).
You sent the ITA just after my message, so I re-add, in case you missed it

  All iamerican, ispell and ibritish packages must have optional priority, not
  standard, only wamerican is intended to be standard (and currently also
  dictionaries-common because wamerican depends on it, but I expect this to
  change after lenny). See dictionaries-common policy,


Apart from looking at the policy document above, you should subscribe to the
dictionaries-common-dev mailing list


That is the development discussion on dictionaries-common for Debian. Is a
very low traffic list, so should not be a problem to your mailbox.

Welcome to spellchecking,


Reply to: