On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Agustin Martin wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 06:08:28PM -0600, Kevin Atkinson wrote: > > > This seems something to be decided in a per dict basis and delegated on > > > dict > > > maintainers. > > > > Yes that is why I suggest you use the settings in the official > > Aspell dictionary package. If the Debian dictionary maintainer thinks > > otherwise I would appreciate an email to that effect. > > We usually try to avoid duplicating sources, so many of the aspell dicts are > not built from the official Aspell dictionary package, but from the original > (usually ispell) wordlist + aff table, with some elements taken from the > official Aspell dictionary package.
I don't particularly agree with that position. I will write more when I find the time. Nevertheless, dict maintainers should at least be in tune with the settings of the official dictionary package. > Also the versioning of official Aspell dictionary packages makes > difficult to know which is the involved upstream version The new Aspell dictionaries now use a version number to match the upstream version. Eventually all dictionary will be converted to use the new format. > I plan to try taking Debian aspell-es maintenance in the near future; since > I maintain the espa~nol source package, that provides ispanish and > myspell-es, all the required sources are already there (and more up to date, > using espa~nol 1.8 instead of 1.7). Since this has no phonetic code, is a > clear candidate for affix compression. That is one of the dictionaries I have been meaning to update. -- http://kevin.atkinson.dhs.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
