Hi, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 09:52:39PM +0100, Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Interesting you ignored all mine comments in my last mail because of > > "Mozilla doesn't support it" even when you a) patch system-myspell in > > yourself b) symlink myspell/ to the shared dictionaries. Both is good, > > and anything else doesn't make sense for an integrated system but both > > are not supported by mozilla either, are they? > > b) is not a big problem. The files are at the same place from iceape > point of view. And why do you think I did a) in the first place ? To > statically link another library instead of the one I externalized ?
I think you did a) because you want to build against *system* myspell. (You btw didn't externalize it, I packaged it once for OOo, you just did the configure flag for mozilla) the change to The difference here is you don't use a copy of some lib in the source but using the stuff from the system. Whether that's static or dynamic it's not the main point (of course dynamic is better, I agree with that) > > You also seems to ignore that Hunspell is 100% compatible to MySpell. > > No location change, no APi change, no whatever change (except the > > class). > > > > And you also seem to ignore my comment that I actually did build ice* > > with hunspell and tried spellchecking... > > I too, test the software I package and don't find bugs. But yet, a lot > are filed. Yes, like the missing rm and CFLAGS (and using the internal myspell.hxx...). Can you tell me how using hunspell should break? Hunspell (the engine) is tested since months with OOo. mozilla will use the same library with the same API calls as it did for MySpell... Gr??e/Regards, Ren? -- .''`. Ren? Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature