From agmartin at debian.org  Tue Oct 25 10:04:28 2016
From: agmartin at debian.org (Agustin Martin)
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 12:04:28 +0200
Subject: [Dict-common-dev] myspell/hunspell relationships need update
In-Reply-To: <20160926102936.z2zrfg5xpgpz77dv@agmartin.aq.upm.es>
References: <20160915134932.GA4514@dinghy.sail.spinnaker.de>
 <20160919144101.wwb2qrwtmccbp6ia@agmartin.aq.upm.es>
 <20160920061443.GF3723@dinghy.sail.spinnaker.de>
 <20160926102936.z2zrfg5xpgpz77dv@agmartin.aq.upm.es>
Message-ID: <20161025100428.aoraaosjvvgtirh2@agmartin.aq.upm.es>

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 12:29:37PM +0200, Agustin Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 08:14:43AM +0200, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> Hi, Roland!
> 
> > On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Agustin Martin wrote:
> > 
> > > > We should remove openoffice.org completely here and we should replace
> > > > iceweasel by firefox.
> > > 
> > > Agreed, 
> > 
> > But don't forget firefox-esr as an alternative...
> 
> Thanks for reminding. Need to actually prepare that line.
> 
> > > > But my more important question is: shouldn't we remove this complete
> > > > bullet point?
> > > > Why do we suggest some randomly chosen programs, that use hunspell/myspell?
> > > > Even hunspell itself (the command line version, in contrast to
> > > > libhunspell-1.4) doesn't make much sense as a "Suggests", since it is
> > > > seldom used, while most users use the library via Firefox, LibreOffice
> > > > or some other programs.
> > > 
> > > At least Emacs uses a pipe to plain hunspell. The point here is that
> > > installing a hunspell dictionary should suggest that it needs to be
> > > installed along with something that uses it, so I do not think that the
> > > suggests is bogus. Other thing is what are the contents of the suggests
> > > line,
> > 
> > Wouldn't that imply, that every lib* should suggest a program that's
> > linked against it?
> > The correct "direction" of dependencies is, that hunspell or
> > libhunspell-* recommends hunspell-directory, which is provided by the
> > directory itself, but not vice versa.
> 
> I do not think they are the same. Usually libraries are not directly
> installed, but pulled by the program needing them. However, for
> dictionaries, a naive user would first think about the dictionary itself
> rather than about the spellchecking engine it uses. Althought usually not
> needed (users installing a dictionary will usually have instaled first
> something that can be used with the dict), that suggests line reminds
> the user that the dictionary should have something capable of using it
> if not already installed. I think this was the original rationale behind the
> suggests line. Rene may remember more details.

Hi again, Roland,

New dictionaries-common release uploaded to sid with updated suggests line.

Did not add other changes, I leave that to Rene consideration.

Regards,

-- 
Agustin