Le mercredi 14 novembre 2018 à 12:17 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > Quoting Sébastien Villemot (2018-11-14 11:12:04) > > Le mardi 13 novembre 2018 à 17:33 +0100, Jonas Smedegaard a écrit : > > > 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. > > Sorry, I fail to understand your argument above. > > Do you say that packages mainly used with tools running in a non-C > locale belong in "localization" section?
Indeed, I consider this to be a sensible interpretation. > > 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. > > So your non-strong opinion makes you insist on an unusual practice in > interpretation of sections - different from *all* other hunspell > dictionaries. > > Debian Policy is based on common practice in Debian. Not on lintian. I'm sorry, but the Policy does not clearly say that dictionaries belong to text. This is only a matter of interpretation. Anyway, I opened #913723 against lintian, and I will follow whatever decision is reached there. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Sébastien Villemot ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Debian Developer ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ http://sebastien.villemot.name ⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ http://www.debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
