On Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 10:58:11PM +0100, Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mike Hommey wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 11:26:34AM +0100, Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL > > PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > There's no big difference in using hunspell and myspell, except that > > > hunspell dictionaries > > > then will also work. And you show that hunspell is used so the security > > > team knows > > > that mozilla needs to be rebuilt (which probably won't happen, no one > > > ever found a security bug > > > in either hunspell or myspell). And in any case, there's already enchant > > > and openoffice.org building > > > with static hunspell (openoffice.org does build far longer than ice*) > > > > How does the security team feel about having to rebuild iceape, > > iceweasel, icedove (you forgot to file a bug on icedove), OOo and enchant > > No, that would have been my next target (the source already is on my > disk) > > > if there happens to be a security bug in hunspell ? > > I am sure there won't be, but if it happens it happens. There's some > static libs in Debian where this is the case, afaik. Of course. not having to > do that is better, but... > > > How do buildds feel to have to rebuild iceape, iceweasel, icedove, OOo > > and enchant for every hunspell upload ? > > You don't have to.
So when you fix bugs in hunspell, you want to leave the bugs in the programs that are statically linked to it. How great. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
