On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 12:54:13PM +0200, Agustin Martin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 04:54:50AM +0300, Brian Nelson wrote: > > Wouldn't you want to clean up the obsolete dicts? > > > > I don't really understand what you're trying to accomplish. Are you > > trying to support *both* old school dictionaries (with the hash files > > packaged) and new ones where the hash is autobuilt? > > I was just brainstorming about how to make the transition easier. > > I personally prefer all aspell dicts being autobuilt, that would make > things much simpler.
Are there any good reasons to not do require dicts to be autobuild, aside from having to do a transition? > But in that case I think is better if things are > put in a non-versioned directory, so the dict location does not change > in case of a non binary-compatible aspell upgrade, just hashes are > autorebuilt. That could be something like > > /usr/lib/aspell-auto I'll buy that. I could change aspell to use /usr/lib/aspell-auto, and the only thing that would break would be current dictionaries, right? If a dictionary were not autobuilt but installed stuff into /usr/lib/aspell-auto directly from the .deb, would aspell-autobuildhash be able to cope? Of course, if both auto and non-auto dicts could share the /usr/lib/aspell-auto, we might as well go back to just calling it /usr/lib/aspell... > If new hashes are sought for in a versioned dir, we would need to move the > dicts links when a new binary incompatible aspell is uploaded, making things > unnecesarily complicated. Yeah. The only real benefit from having a version in the directory name is to support concurrent installs of incompatible aspells, which of course we don't need... -- Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to pretend to like each other. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
