Source: wordnet Severity: normal Hi,
Is there a good reason for having 3 separate packages for the same wordnet lexical database? Right now, we have: wordnet goldendict-wordnet dict-wn dico-module-wordnet >From a dictionary server point of view, having just one pacakge would have been nicer. But I can see the argument that may come the other way around too. Tools like GoldenDict are nicer that they are able to scan the installed dictionaries in dict format. This way, it helps the user who could use the client/server dict interface, as well as the very pretty and useful goldendict interface. Is there some way to have it common ? I can see some information loss of the results from goldendict-wordnet vs dict-wn use case. The other concerning thing is the multiple copies with different versions/wordcounts. dico-module-wordnet is at version 2.2-9. I'm not sure what the db version is at. On the rest of the wordnet packages in Debian, you are the maintainer for all of them. All the packages are at the same version, but their word counts are slightly different. For example, as per goldendict dictionaries tab: goldendict-wordnet => Total Words: 148730 dict-wn => Total Words: 147311 Also, the results of dict-wn vs goldendict-wordnet are slightly different. -- System Information: Debian Release: stretch/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'unstable'), (101, 'experimental') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Foreign Architectures: i386 Kernel: Linux 4.6.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_IN.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_IN.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
