On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 01:23:39PM +0200, Agustin Martin wrote: Thanks for your email here! Given that you are involved with several packages with dicts you find your input here important and valuable :)
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 01:40:52PM +0000, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: After my email Rene suggested me to add Conflicts in most of the cases, instead of dropping every problematic binary, and a package with them has already been uploaded, currently in NEW. > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:45:04AM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote: > > > hunspell-hrr_myspell-hr > > > > Here there is a typo: hrr → hr. I corrected it, but I'll just ignore > > the conseguences since this package existed only for one day... > > (it fits in the section below) > > These also contain the same patterns and words. Seems OK to disable it in > lo-dicts. I disabled hyphen-hr, but kept hunspell-hr, conflicting with myspell-hr. The last maintainer upload was in 2009, with 3 (the number 2 seems to have been lost somewhere...) different, quite large NMUs and a really simple bug is sitting in the BTS. I'd rather just take over everything, tbh. > > > hunspell-el_myspell-el-gr > > Same aff file in current versions, so it is indeed a myspell dict. dic > files are different, but I cannot really compare. lo dict seems however, > based in an old 0.7 version, while myspell-el-gr contains 0.8 (and there is > a 0.9 upstream version waiting). Seems OK to disable it in lo-dicts. Oh, this one was last uploaded in 2012, the maintainer is not gone at least (I see an upload from him in 2014-10), the 0.9 seems to be from 2015-03-14. I opened a bug at TDF [0] to update the dictionaries there. Anyway, there is a Conflicts: in place there too. [0] https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94415 > > > hunspell-et_myspell-et. > > Same contents in both. OK to disable it in lo-dicts. This one is really up-to-date and maintained, and actually it Provides: hunspell-et. I think it's sane/wise to disable it in our part (done in git) > > > > hunspell-pt_myspell-pt-br > > BTW, shouldn't hunspell-pt be hunspell-pt-br? Itt should. The very same way pt-pt is named pt-pt (annoying, this means another NEW trip...) > Both hunspell-pt and myspell-pt-br contain exactly the same dictionary (just > version string in aff file is changed). I am adding a break in myspell-pt-br > against any hunspell-pt-br (not yet hunspell-pt), but I think it is OK to > disable hunspell-pt for now. would you add a Provides: hunspell-pt at least? > > > hunspell-pt-pt_myspell-pt-pt > > hunspell-pt-pt dictionary here is an hunspell-only dictionary, so it > deserves it's own package. I will add a break against hunspell-pt-pt in > myspell-pt-pt 20091013-10, but I think hunspell-pt-pt should stay, but > conflicting with myspell-pt-pt (<=20091013-10) and replacing it. Once it > is minimaly tested in Debian I can make myspell-pt-pt a transitional > package to ensure a smooth transition to hunspell-pt-pt. nice! Currently there is naked "Conflicts: myspell-pt-pt" (i.e. unversioned). Though your paragraph here sounds awkward: does myspell-pt-pt deserve or not its own package? :) (I belive you missed a "don't" in the second line). -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. more about me: http://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
