Bug#401969: please build using hunspell

Mike Hommey mh at glandium.org
Sat Dec 9 09:31:09 CET 2006

On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 10:58:11PM +0100, Rene Engelhard <rene at debian.org> wrote:
> Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 11:26:34AM +0100, Rene Engelhard <rene at debian.org> wrote:
> > > There's no big difference in using hunspell and myspell, except that hunspell dictionaries
> > > then will also work. And you show that hunspell is used so the security team knows
> > > that mozilla needs to be rebuilt (which probably won't happen, no one ever found a security bug
> > > in either hunspell or myspell). And in any case, there's already enchant and openoffice.org building
> > > with static hunspell (openoffice.org does build far longer than ice*)
> > 
> > How does the security team feel about having to rebuild iceape,
> > iceweasel, icedove (you forgot to file a bug on icedove), OOo and enchant
> No, that would have been my next target (the source already is on my
> disk)
> > if there happens to be a security bug in hunspell ?
> I am sure there won't be, but if it happens it happens. There's some
> static libs in Debian where this is the case, afaik. Of course. not having to
> do that is better, but...
> > How do buildds feel to have to rebuild iceape, iceweasel, icedove, OOo
> > and enchant for every hunspell upload ?
> You don't have to.

So when you fix bugs in hunspell, you want to leave the bugs in the
programs that are statically linked to it. How great.


More information about the pkg-mozilla-maintainers mailing list