On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 03:13:41PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Package: aspell > > Many aspell dictionaries depend on the libaspell15 package. with the > next soversion (or the coming C++ ABI change), the package name has to > be changed, as well as other 24 dictionary packages. That's just a > maintainance burden. Package dictionaries may depend on aspell (>= > 0.60) instead, but you may argue, that the aspell binary isn't > necessarily needed. Proposing: > > - a new libaspell package, which depends on the current libaspell15 > package (a provides is not enough, because dictionaries have to > depend on an version, and versioned provides don't yet exist) > > - alternatively dictionary packages should depend on aspell. > > - a short paragraph in README.Debian as a mini policy. >
Hi, Matthias and Brian Just to note that after Brian suggestion, one of the things that are waiting in dictionaries-common for sarge release is aspell-autobuidhash, allowing the binary hashes being built from dict postinst. This is still very experimental, and would require for dicts using it that not only libaspellxx is installed but also aspell-bin, but should make dependencies simpler for those dicts, since the dependency would be on aspell-bin, which is synced to the appropriate libaspellxx because it depends on it. This has the advantage that dicts will be arch: all packages, because endianess would be dealt with at hash building (our mirrors will be happy). The drawback is that aspell-bin is required, that more space is used in the system and that for slow systems the on-the-fly build might not be as fast as expected (aspell efficiency on this is much higher now, so this might no longer be a problem, but is still to be tested with aspell-0.60) Apps using aspell should depend on the libaspellxx they are linked to, as currently. [No need to cc me, I am subscribed to aspell PTS] Cheers, -- Agustin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
