Damien added it to the build already, see enchant.spec in trunk. Note that enchant is not yet another spell checker, it's a wrapper around all kinds of spell checkers.
Laca On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 23:06 -0600, Brian Cameron wrote: > Hmm. Should we be using enchant in our Solaris builds, or will > ARC have a fit at "yet another spell checker in the desktop?" > :) > > Brian > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: gedit wants enchant (Was: Re: GEdit wants enchant) > Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:32:07 -0700 > From: Elijah Newren <newren at gmail.com> > To: Paolo Maggi <paolo.maggi at polito.it> > CC: gedit-list <gedit-list at gnome.org>, msuarezalvarez at arnet.com.ar, > desktop-devel-list at gnome.org > References: <1165310314.7197.2.camel at elilix> > > Sorry for being slow to respond; I was swamped earlier with other stuff... > > On 12/5/06, Paolo Maggi <paolo.maggi at polito.it> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > > nowadays (<http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365899#c20>), gedit > > > depends on Enchant for its spell checker plugin. This dependency can be > > > eliminated by passing --disable-spell to configure, but as spell > > > checking is a rather important thing this sounds like a bad idea. > > > > This is right, on popular request we ported the gedit spell checker plugin > > to use enchant (http://www.abisource.com/projects/enchant/) instead of the > > bare > > aspell (http://aspell.net/). > > > > I don't see why do you think this is a problem. The spell checker plugin is > > conditionally compiled at the same way it was conditionally compiled when we > > depended on aspell. > > Paolo, there are/were two problems: (1) you added the dependency > without first proposing it on desktop-devel-list (which has been > required since the start of the 2.17 cycle; see > http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointSeventeen/ExternalDependencies for more > details); although you made it sort-of-optional you required the user > to manually add a flag to request that it the dependency not be used > in order for the build to not fail, (2) I was really lame and took two > weeks to respond so we couldn't clean this up earlier. Sorry about > that. > > Anyway it looks like there's general consensus to accept the > dependency so I'll go add it. :-) > > Thanks for all your awesome work on gedit, Paolo, and thanks to > Mariano for catching this issue and bringing it up. > > Cheers, > Elijah > _______________________________________________ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list at gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list > _______________________________________________ > desktop-discuss mailing list > desktop-discuss at opensolaris.org
