A 2014-09-06 09:01, Mikel Forcada escrigué: > Dear all, > > I have a question that was posed by my student John E. Ortega (CC-ed). > Could someone enlight me about the reasons why we need to have > separate installations for lttoolbox and apertium, which in addition > go each one in a different directory? > > Currently, Installing means making two directories, and going in and > out of each of them to configure/autogen and make. The > configure/autogen sequences for lttoolbox and apertium seem to share > most checks and could be easily merged. Also, apertium requires > lttoolbox to be installed. Would it make sense to have a single > Apertium install that installs the whole canonical Apertium bundle? > > I know that some people would have to install other non-canonical > things like HFST on top, but most language pairs use lttoolbox one way > or another. > > I look forward to your answer
Yes, all pairs use both lttoolbox (at least for the bilingual dictionary) and apertium. As far as I remember the reason for having a separate lttoolbox was because some other stuff used lttoolbox as a finite-state library. I'm not sure how much that is valid any more. By the apertium 3.5.x release I am planning to merge in lrx-proc and lrx-comp to the apertium/ branch (leaving the training tools in apertium-lex-tools). I suppose we could do a similar thing with lttoolbox too. Perhaps have lttoolbox and apertium merged as a target for a 4.0 release ? Fran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
