Yavor Doganov writes: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 02:39:04PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 16:30:56 +0300, Yavor Doganov wrote: > > > These files are supposed to be regenerated in postinst by > > > update-dictcommon-aspell; that's a feature. > > > > Then why is it shipped in the package? Is it just so that dpkg removes > > it automatically? > > That's the sole reason, yes. From aspell-autobuildhash(8): > | Dictionaries-common scripts will call internally this script and > | create a single hash file at /var/lib/ispell/$lang.rws, or hash files > | at /var/lib/ispell/$subdict.rws. You must set a symlink to that files > | from /usr/lib/aspell/$lang.rws or /usr/lib/aspell/$subdict.rws as > | appropriate. You are also suggested to create empty files at > | /var/lib/aspell/$lang.rws or for all of the > | /var/lib/aspell/$subdict.rws in the install target of your package > | build process. This empty file will be overwritten when the real hash > | is created, but will make the hash be removed at package removal > | without any magic being done in the postrm and will also help to keep > | track about which package owns that file.
long forgotten... and it seems to me that we have 'double head': good practices vs. what is suggested/implemented/recommended in aspell- autobuildhash(8). I only mourn for hashsums (debsums) being different after regeneration! So, should we proceed with that package the way it is? -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
