Mikel Forcada <[email protected]> writes: > 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.
One argument for having lttoolbox separate is that that it makes our dictionaries more easily usable outside Apertium – and makes it easier to use lttoolbox as a general FST library. The lttoolbox package has less dependencies than apertium (ie. pcre) and takes a lot less time to compile :) Another reason is that it keeps us from falling into the trap of making the codebases too interdependent (none of the lttoolbox code should depend on apertium). I don't like the idea of one monolithic package just to avoid having to type three more lines. And with the nightly packages for Debian/Ubuntu (and RPM's on their way), even that is not really an argument any more. -- Kevin Brubeck Unhammer GPG: 0x766AC60C
pgpUhTIch3t5E.pgp
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
