On Friday 01 Feb 2002 15:25, Pablo Saratxaga wrote: > Kaixo! > > Recently I learned that it is possible to create an aspell language > file from an ispell one. > So, I wonder if it isn't now time to do the switch (I had asked to keep > ispell when aspell has been introduced in the distro as there were (and > still are) several languages for which there are ispell files but not > aspell ones). > > aspell and ispell have different interfaces and command line parameters > however. > > So, I wondered, if we provided a shell script called "ispell" to do > the needed compatibvility support, removed the ispell language modules > that have an aspell one, and coverted to aspell the ones existing > only in ispell; would that be ok ? > > If you use ispell I would like to hear from you about this. > > If there is no objections, I would start the switch. > > > > > From a packager/mantainer point of vue, the package aspell will include > a compatibility script "ispell", and the package "ispell" will be moved > to contrib (or at least put with a very low priority in DrakX), and > have the binary "ispell" renamed (to "ispell.original" or something > like that); and it main purpose would be to allow the conversion of > ispell packages to aspell (as the process involves use of ispell to > expand to a raw wordlist). > > So, for packages having only ispell equivalent the build process would > be: - create ispell hash > - expand ispell hash to wordlist > - convert wordlist to aspell file > - package an rpm with the aspell files > I much prefer to use aspell than ispell, in particular because it has a British English dictionary, whereas ispell has "English=American".
Now that KDE works with aspell at last I have no objections to your suggestion. -- Peter Ruskin, Wrexham, Wales. AMD Athlon XP 1600+, 512MB RAM. Registered Linux User 219434. Mandrake Linux release 8.1 (Vitamin) Kernel 2.4.8-34.1mdk-win4lin, XFree86 4.1.0, patch level 21mdk. KDE: 2.2.2. Qt: 2.3.2. Up 1 hour 9 minutes.
