On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 01:40:52PM +0000, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 10:45:04AM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote: > > this concerns a whole list of myspell-X and hunspell-X packages, but I am > > filing this bug only against hunspell-af. Here is the complete list: > > I was kinda looking for this bug, actually. It's somewhat difficult to > find out everything when you have a so large number of packages. > Anyway, I truly expected some less... > > > [re-sorting the list] > > hunspell-af_myspell-af > > hunspell-en-gb_myspell-en-gb > > hunspell-en-za_myspell-en-za > > hunspell-it_myspell-it > > hunspell-sw_myspell-sw > > hunspell-th_myspell-th > > These come from src:openoffice.org-dictionaries, which I want to somehow > remove, so I added transitive packages + breaks/replaces for them. > > > hunspell-sl_myspell-sl > > This one is orphaned, and the source contains only the hunspell > patterns. So, I decided to take it over. > Added a transitional package and breaks/replaces here too.
Note that both contain the same patterns and words. No upstream watch, so better tracked from libreoffice. > > hunspell-hrr_myspell-hr > > Here there is a typo: hrr → hr. I corrected it, but I'll just ignore > the conseguences since this package existed only for one day... > (it fits in the section below) These also contain the same patterns and words. Seems OK to disable it in lo-dicts. > > hunspell-el_myspell-el-gr Same aff file in current versions, so it is indeed a myspell dict. dic files are different, but I cannot really compare. lo dict seems however, based in an old 0.7 version, while myspell-el-gr contains 0.8 (and there is a 0.9 upstream version waiting). Seems OK to disable it in lo-dicts. > > hunspell-et_myspell-et. Same contents in both. OK to disable it in lo-dicts. > > hunspell-pt_myspell-pt-br BTW, shouldn't hunspell-pt be hunspell-pt-br? Both hunspell-pt and myspell-pt-br contain exactly the same dictionary (just version string in aff file is changed). I am adding a break in myspell-pt-br against any hunspell-pt-br (not yet hunspell-pt), but I think it is OK to disable hunspell-pt for now. > > hunspell-pt-pt_myspell-pt-pt hunspell-pt-pt dictionary here is an hunspell-only dictionary, so it deserves it's own package. I will add a break against hunspell-pt-pt in myspell-pt-pt 20091013-10, but I think hunspell-pt-pt should stay, but conflicting with myspell-pt-pt (<=20091013-10) and replacing it. Once it is minimaly tested in Debian I can make myspell-pt-pt a transitional package to ensure a smooth transition to hunspell-pt-pt. Regards, -- Agustin