Your message dated Tue, 16 Aug 2016 23:52:23 +0530
with message-id <1471371743.10250.18.ca...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#833384: wordnet: multiple packages for the same
database
has caused the Debian Bug report #833384,
regarding wordnet: multiple packages for the same database
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
833384: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=833384
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: wordnet
Severity: normal
Hi,
Is there a good reason for having 3 separate packages for the same
wordnet lexical database?
Right now, we have:
wordnet
goldendict-wordnet
dict-wn
dico-module-wordnet
>From a dictionary server point of view, having just one pacakge would
have been nicer. But I can see the argument that may come the other way
around too.
Tools like GoldenDict are nicer that they are able to scan the installed
dictionaries in dict format. This way, it helps the user who could use
the client/server dict interface, as well as the very pretty and useful
goldendict interface.
Is there some way to have it common ? I can see some information loss of
the results from goldendict-wordnet vs dict-wn use case.
The other concerning thing is the multiple copies with different
versions/wordcounts.
dico-module-wordnet is at version 2.2-9. I'm not sure what the db
version is at.
On the rest of the wordnet packages in Debian, you are the maintainer
for all of them. All the packages are at the same version, but their
word counts are slightly different.
For example, as per goldendict dictionaries tab:
goldendict-wordnet => Total Words: 148730
dict-wn => Total Words: 147311
Also, the results of dict-wn vs goldendict-wordnet are slightly
different.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable-debug'), (500, 'unstable'),
(101, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 4.6.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_IN.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_IN.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Hello Dmitry,
On Mon, 2016-08-15 at 16:09 +0300, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote:
> > If the goldendict binary is able to
> > cope with dict format as well I'm tempted to drop this package and the
> > according Ruby code which I do not understand and which had created
> > trouble in the past. Dmitry, could you please comment on this?
>
> The script (converter) was written by goldendict contributor.
> Goldendict can't use wordnet database directly, so I think that
> current way is the easiest variant to use wordnet in goldendict.
>
Actually, Goldentdict is pretty featureful, in that it allows multiple ways to
access lexical databases. For eg. one can also interface to a dict server, using
the Goldendict UI.
Also, note that the goldendict-wordnet package provides more descriptive and
formatted results, in comparison to dict-wn.
> PS: We live in the 21 st century, so is it really worth exerting
> oneself for saving a couple of dozens megabytes in repository (not
> at the user's hard disk)?
Totally agree. But keep in mind that there are many developing and poor nations
too. Swaziland is an example I can give from DC16.
Anyways, the intent of the bug report was to gather information from the
maintainers, to know the reasoning. I think I've gotten that. I'm closing this
bug report.
PS: Thanks for maintaining Goldendict. I really am liking it a lot.
- --
Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs
Debian - The Universal Operating System
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=Ir5K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- End Message ---
--
debian-science-maintainers mailing list
debian-science-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-science-maintainers
