On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 8:56:00 AM MST Rene Engelhard wrote: > I'd argue for a separate package since this .bdic is QtWebengine > specific isn't it? Nothing else uses it. > > Whereas the hunspell dicts as-is are used by various applications. > > > and if the proposed file locations and symlinks are the best way to > > handle the installation > > As the person who wrote the initial hunspell policy I don't like those > .bdic files in /usr/share/hunspell. > > > My plan was to wait and see how things landed with the English > > package and then reach out to the maintainers of the other Hunspell > languages and offer assistance to add the Qt WebEngine dictionaries to > their packages as well. > > > One could have also talked to the hunspell maintainer....
I did speak to the maintainer of the English hunspell packages (Don Armstrong), which are based on the scowl source package. I originally felt that it would be better for these to be separate binary packages for the same reasons you have stated. He was the one who felt, because of their small size, it would be better for these to be packaged in the existing binaries. You can read that discussion here: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1017646[1] I don’t have a strong preference either way. I also don’t know if the maintainers of the various hunspell packages in different languages do much coordination with each other. This is his patch that enables the building of the Qt WebEngine binary dictionaries: https://git.donarmstrong.com/?p=deb_pkgs/ scowl.git;a=commitdiff;h=4510f7fed66204384fe8c39fc875e24fd874229b[2] Soren -- Soren Stoutner 623-262-6169 so...@stoutner.com -------- [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1017646 [2] https://git.donarmstrong.com/?p=deb_pkgs/ scowl.git;a=commitdiff;h=4510f7fed66204384fe8c39fc875e24fd874229b
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
