Control: clone -1 -2 Control: reopen -2 Control: reassign -2 lintian 2.5.53 Control: retitle -2 please confirm that dictionaries should move to section localization
Le mercredi 14 novembre 2018 à 11:12 +0100, Sébastien Villemot a écrit : > Le mardi 13 novembre 2018 à 17:33 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > > Dear Sébastien, > > > > Quoting Sébastien Villemot (2018-11-13 16:34:05) > > > Le mardi 13 novembre 2018 à 16:12 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > > > > I consider lintian an _aid_ but not authoritative. > > > > > > I tend to consider lintian authoritative when there is no “higher > > > source of law” (such as the Policy, DevRef, team policies…). > > > > Ok, so we agree that Debian Policy is more authoritative than lintian. > > > > Debian Policy states § 2.4 says this about section definitions: > > > > > For more information about the sections and their definitions, see the > > > list of sections in unstable. > > > The web page https://packages.debian.org/unstable/ says this about > > > > section "localization": > > > > > Localization support for big software packages. > > > > ...and this about section "text": > > > > > Utilities to format and print text documents. > > > > > > It seems sensible to me that hunspell dictionaries are treated as > > utilites to process text documents rather than localization support. > > > > Localization is specific to mapping internationalization strings into a > > local context - purpos of a dictionary is far more general than that - > > and it seems all other maintainers of hunspell dictionaries besides you > > came to that same conclusion. > > On the other hand, the main usage of dictionaries is to correct > spelling within the context of _localized_ text editors. So it's not > absurd to consider that their main purpose is localization, though I > agree that they may be used in other contexts. > > All in all, I don't have a strong opinion on this issue, and I'm not > willing to make the reverse move as long as lintian advocates section > localization. > > As already said, I consider that you should be the one filing a bug > against lintian, since you have a much stronger opinion than me on this > topic. > > FYI, bug #874121 contains the patch that implemented this lintian tag, > but unfortunately it contains no justification for it. I was asked by lamby on irc to file the issue against lintian, so there you go (cloning this bug). -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ http://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ http://www.debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
