Re: Review Request 129742: Add option FORCE_ENABLE_HUNSPELL

2017-01-15 Thread Martin Tobias Holmedahl Sandsmark
> On Jan. 15, 2017, 12:46 p.m., Martin Tobias Holmedahl Sandsmark wrote: > > Ship It! tbh., I have no idea why it uses the explicit versions, pre-1.2 is ancient and I doubt anyone uses it so I don't think even a minimum version check is necessary. I see at least on arch it is symlinked to

Re: Review Request 129742: Add option FORCE_ENABLE_HUNSPELL

2017-01-15 Thread Martin Tobias Holmedahl Sandsmark
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/129742/#review102038 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Martin Tobias Holmedahl Sandsmark

Re: Review Request 129742: Add option FORCE_ENABLE_HUNSPELL

2017-01-02 Thread Albert Astals Cid
> On Jan. 2, 2017, 10:53 p.m., Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > I don't think this makes any sense. I understand your pain, would i'd > > rather improve the search of hunspell than accept it's crap and you want > > people to override it. > > Andreas Sturmlechner wrote: > It sure ain't pretty.

Re: Review Request 129742: Add option FORCE_ENABLE_HUNSPELL

2017-01-02 Thread Andreas Sturmlechner
> On Jan. 2, 2017, 10:53 p.m., Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > I don't think this makes any sense. I understand your pain, would i'd > > rather improve the search of hunspell than accept it's crap and you want > > people to override it. It sure ain't pretty. But then I don't know why the

Re: Review Request 129742: Add option FORCE_ENABLE_HUNSPELL

2017-01-02 Thread Albert Astals Cid
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/129742/#review101749 --- I don't think this makes any sense. I understand your pain,