Bug#401969: please build using hunspell

Rene Engelhard rene at debian.org
Fri Dec 8 14:12:47 CET 2006


Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 02:49:12AM +0100, Rene Engelhard <rene at debian.org> wrote:
> > Because of this. Binaries which link to a SONAME which only exist in
> > distributions inventing a SONAME don't work elsewhere. Binaries built
> > on Fedora (and Debian if i'd apply it if shared libs' future in hunspell
> > is uncertain) are not able to use it somewhere else where only the
> > "normal" upstream contents are packaged. Of course, binary-only things
> > suck and you most times have the source to rebuild it, but...
> Debian doesn't guaranty binary compatibility of its binaries with other
> distributions.

I know, but that is not an argument to deliberately break it.
If a incompatibility happens, ok, but...

> > (...)
> > What is your argument exactly for not linking to link against that static
> > lib? Only because it's static? That argument IMHO doesn't really
> > score...
> > Many things link against static libs - simply becaus ethere's no shared
> > lib (yet) upstream.
> > 
> > My points are:
> > - you are blocking usage of superior dicts (hunspell-*) elsewhere
> >   (OOo, enchant/abiword) by not supporting hunspell in Ice* for those
> >   that use OOo or enchant/abiword and some Ice animal.
> >   (And I want to get myspell removed for etch+1...)
> OTOH, you are blocking better hunspell for ... no reason.

I am currently blocking a shared library only (and I din't think
"blocking" fits it at all since plain upstream does not have any shared
That doesn't improve hunspell (as the engine) in any way. The effect also
is there with the static library and when hunspell finally has a shared lib
you can build against that.

And in any case, adding a new shared lib now is too late for etch anyway
whereas linking with hunspell can be done for etch still.

> Also note what you are asking is not (yet) supported by mozilla.

So what? The only thing I change is to exchange MySpell through the
API-compatible (except the class name) and improved hunspell. Behaviour
of the interface doesn't change, but the spellchecking gets better.

That Mozilla itself uses an obsolete spellchecking engine (they took
myspell from OOo, but didn't do it with hunspell, which was becoming
default with OOo 2.0.2 in March) is bad, yes, but that's no reason
to block this.

Hunspell is completely compatible; you can re-use your old myspell
dicts, too.


 .''`.  Ren? Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  rene at debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-mozilla-maintainers/attachments/20061208/015e9a4b/attachment.pgp

More information about the pkg-mozilla-maintainers mailing list