El mar, 20 sept 2022 a las 22:33, Soren Stoutner (<so...@stoutner.com>) escribió: > > Package: dictionaries-common > Version: 1.28.18 > Severity: wishlist > Tags: l10n > > Qt WebEngine has the ability to use Hunspell dictionaries for spell checking > with the WebEngine, but for some reason they require that the dictionary > files be converted to a special binary format (.bdic). This conversion can > be done using qwebengine_convert_dict from the qtwebengine5-dev-tools > package. The upstream documentation regarding this is found on Qt's website: > > https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qtwebengine-features.html#spellchecker > > Once these libraries are available they can be used by any program that > includes Qt WebEngine. > > The purpose of this bug report is to create a central location for discussion > about the best way to package these dictionaries.
Hi, Soren. Sorry for the delay. For some reason your messages went to the spambox and I am becoming aware of them just now (as well as about all this issue). Here goes a quick reply. First of all, I am curious about the reasons behind this new format, the problems it deals with and its advantages. I assume they are valid enough, but they imply yet another spellchecking engine/format. We currently have goog old ispell, aspell and hunspell. vim has its own spellchecker engine using its own format, with dicts that can be created from old myspell2 dicts. We did not add vim format dicts (from aspell dicts sources) since there seems to be some work to make vim use hunspell directly. And now these bdict dicts. Some other questions here, >From your info and proposed locations seems that these dicts are arch:all, ¿is that true? Another question is what happens with affix files, which I see are used at build time, ¿are they used (from their path) at runtime or is all the info (dic+aff) bundled into the bdic file? If explicit affix files are still required at runtime, both bdic and aff files should probably be in the same dir. Otherwise I am more for a separate location. In this case, since bdic dicts seem to be more generic than just a qtwebengine issue and they are indeed created from hunspell files I would go for a rather generic name (may be something like /usr/share/hunspell-bdic or something without the hunspell name?) Regarding the binary package that should contain them, I tested with en_US files and bdic file is smaller that .dic file, but not very much, so size seems not the main reason to go one way or another. Do not know for other languages. While it is easier to handle dependencies with separate packages, I admit I do not have a strong opinion here, Regards, -- Agustin
