Bug#401969: please build using hunspell

[Rene Engelhard]

Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 02:29:36PM +0100, Rene Engelhard <rene at debian.org> wrote:
> > Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 01:13:27PM +0100, Rene Engelhard <rene at debian.org> wrote:
> > > > I do. There's hunspell dictionaries in Debian which have to conflict
> > > > against all mozillas...
> > > 
> > > I fail to see why. Are the hunspell dictionaries in
> > > /usr/share/myspell/dicts or what ?
> > 
> > Yes.
> 
> If the dictionaries are not compatible with myspell, why put them in
> /usr/share/*myspell* ?

Has its reasons lying in the past.

a) everything using myspell looked at this place and I of course wanted
   hunspell to look there where all myspell dicts are since they are
   100% compatible and there are more myspell dicts there than "new"
   hunspell dicts
b) OOo supports only *one* dir and *one* dictionary.lst for this.
   This could have been worked around by symlinking myspell dicts into
   /usr/share/hunspell/dicts, but more importantly, every dictionary has to be
   registered at /etc/openoffice/dictionary.lst. Which, due to OOo not caring
   about the FHS at all, is in /etc and /usr/share/myspell/dicts/dictionary.lst
   (where OOo expects it) is a symlink to that. Not to forget the
   additional xx-YY.* -> xx_YY.dic symlinks you might want/need only for
   mozilla. (Note also that /usr/share/myspell/dicts isn't even sensible to set at
   OOo either, you need a symlink pointing to that, too)
   (/usr/lib/openoffice/share/dict/ooo -> /usr/share/myspell/dicts).
   This would have been a maintenance nightmare.
c) when hunspell (the ui interface) would look in /usr/share/hunspell it
   would not find any myspell dict unless you do the symlink farm from
   b)
d) if you did the symlink farms in b) and c) the DSDT policy needed to
   get changed and every myspell package updated/NMUed. I didn't want
   to go that far yet...
e) I hoped Mozilla upstream would adopt Hunspell quite fast (as they did with
   MySpell) in which case this wouldn't have been a problem after all.
   After I saw they didn't I sent the patch we're discussing about now
   only because you don't like static libs.

Gr??e/Regards,

Ren?
-- 
 .''`.  Ren? Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  rene at debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-mozilla-maintainers/attachments/20061209/e2400dd3/attachment.pgp