Nicolas Mailhot pisze:
Le samedi 29 septembre 2007 à 19:07 +0200, Marcin Miłkowski a écrit :
Nicolas Mailhot pisze:
So instead of wasting energy pretending the linguistic project with its
few spell-checkers knows better the distribution job that distros which
have been at it for years and update systems from the kernel to the UI
theme, if OO.o could focus on getting its material in a format that
makes our distribution easy, we'd be grateful.
Currently, the only option to install dictionaries that do not come with
OOo itself
The set of dictionaries available on a Linux system is not what OO.o
chooses to bundle or not
You're wrong in some cases. Sometimes it is - distributors use OOo
sources to build their RPMs.
in distros that have such an exquisite system is to do it
manually. If you think this is better than using DicOOo, you should
probably consult your therapist.
And what you don't understand is a distribution an open system and the
solution to get something to users is to work with distributions not
workaround them.
Mind you, I've been using Linux for ten years now and I really think
that all distribution systems need workarounds to get my work done. And
I've used anything from Slackware to Red Hat, to Debian, Mandriva,
Aurox, Suse, Ubuntu, PLD and probably some other stuff. So I don't
understand anyone claiming that this works. It works if you can compile
the system from the command line - but then you don't need all the smart
work that is supposed to be there ;)
That's a funny argument, it seems I've made the effort to locate your
list not the reverse. And there are a lot *more* apps distributions are
interested in than distributions for apps to worry about.
OO.o is an international project so there are local distros we must
worry about in many countries.
I've seen distros that
simply install all possible dictionaries. And that's definitely a
performance hog for OOo.
And that's an OO.o bug plain and simple so don't expect us to build our
system around your bugs.
So don't expect users to use distributions that make their systems
useless in office work. Get real. It is the _user_ we need to worry
about and not some abstract theological discussions about fixing all
possible bugs. I cannot fix it myself and I'm not even sure if it still
is there. I only remember reading this as a tip in some OOo manual.
Anyway, to stop the mutual ranting, what distributions expect from a
component provider is :
A. an authoritative download source (ftp or http directory)
There are OOo mirrors with most stuff that is put on the wiki.
B. raw material in nice versionned archives
Not always feasible. Dictionary maintainers in some cases might be even
dead or we lost contact with them.
C. including licencing statements (in the archives), using well-known
licenses that don't need analysis
The bundled dicts are all LGPL. But we'd need to review that.
D. with if possible detached digital signatures or checksums to verify
we're distributing the right stuff
That's feasible.
E. feedback channels (mailing list, irc channel, bug tracker)
Not feasible. You won't meet dictionary maintainers there if that's what
you mean. Otherwise, you can use this list.
F. update announce channels (RSS, announce list, whatever)
That's possible.
G. instructions to install your stuff via CLI scripts automatically
Probably feasible.
H. some roadmap info so we know how your release schedule fits in ours
Dictionary releases are not centralized. There is no roadmap and there
cannot be. Nobody but the maintainer for the Malayalam can know when a
release is ready.
F. all this on a nice easy-to-find webpage not something lost in a
website maze
This is possible.
To sum up: in some cases, we have abandoned stuff we cannot update or
anything as maintainers are unknown or unreachable. So what you want is
something that cannot be even in the offing. I mean we accept open
source work but you cannot expect me, for example, to fix a Kashubian
dictionary. So we cannot simply do that for many languages. That's why
we need a system that allows you to accept the license (if it's not
LGPL), download the stuff, and install it. If you can do this for Adobe
Flash Player, you can do that for OOo dictionaries.
The nice thing is that in the near future, hunspell will replace myspell
in Mozilla projects. This means that Firefox dictionaries will be
exactly the same as in OOo. We could think of a common framework for
distribution. Anyway, you probably don't distribute Firefox spelling
dictionaries, do you? Let's reuse the solution as these are the same
files (in most cases, anyway, they are the same even now, the only
exceptions being those dictionaries that use advanced hunspell stuff).
As far as I remember Firefox people require me to click the website to
install an extension for every dictionary so that's not really bundled
in a distro, right?
To take a non-software example the DejaVu project (dejavu.sf.net) has
all this right and it got itself distributed by pretty much everyone in
a short span of time (one of the stragglers being OO.o BTW which still
has not realised Vera development stopped years ago)
Fine. But mind you, fonts are easier to maintain than dictionaries. In
most cases, you have more than one per language you can use the font in,
so you can simply select the right licenses, actively maintained ones
etc. It's not that simple in case of dictionaries. You cannot simply
pick the right ones if all you've got is some abandoned but decent stuff...
OTOH lingucomponent makes it awfully hard to find raw dictionary
archives, check their version, their legal status, script their install,
etc. So distributions don't bother, or only for the main languages.
That's why we bother to make DicOOo work. And it works in most
situations. Firefox works the same way - as far as I know. So who's to
blame?
Regards,
Marcin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
