On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 06:39:16AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Am Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 01:31:14PM -0700 schrieb Soren Stoutner: > > Another option would be to create a separate binary package (for example, > > qtwebengine-dict-en-us). > > Name makes sense to me, yes. > > > The argument for including it in the existing binary package is that the > > compiled Qt WebEngine dictionary is not very large (691.2 KiB for en_US). > > I don't think that is a reason to keep it in hunspell-* per se, so.. > > > The argument for splitting it into a separate binary package is that most > > people who install the Hunspell dictionaries don't intent to use a program > > that does spell checking inside of a Qt WebEngine, so it would be wasted > > space on their system. > > I agree with this one.
TBH, I'd argue for keeping them in the same hunspell-$lang binary
packages, without creating another 80ish binary packages for what IMHO
is very little gain. My understanding is that these a tighly coupled
objects, with everything relatively small… I'd just stash everything
together.
> > Originally, I had proposed installing the dictionary files directly into
> > /usr/share/qt5/qtwebengine_dictionaries with a symlink from the upcoming
> > /usr/share/qt6/qtwebengine_dictionaries. However Don Armstrong proposed
> > that they instead be installed in an unversioned directory and then
> > symlinked from all the current versioned Qt directories, which makes it
> > easier to maintain.
>
> Yup. Or patch QtWebEgine to (also) directly look there if they are supposed to
> be compatible between Qt5/Qt6 (which a symlink assumes)
> and directly install it there (as you propose later to
> usr/share/qtwebengine-dict)?
>
> CCing the QtWebEgine Maintainers.
>
> > His patch, linked above, places the .bdic files into /usr/share/hunspell
> > with the original Hunspell files they were compiled from.
> > Rene Engelhard <r...@debian.org> objects to this file location because he
> > feels it should be preserved for files in the canonical Hunspell format.
>
> Indeed.
>
> > If a different directory is used for the Qt WebEngine .bdic files, I would
> > propose something like /usr/share/qtwebengine-dict.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> > I don't have a particularly strong opinion about either of these two
> > issues, although I do lean slightly towards having separate binary packages
> > and using /usr/share/qtwebengine-dict for the file locations.
>
> Good.
I also don't think installing the files in /usr/share/hunspell make
sense, but /usr/share/qtwebengine-dict(s)/ is good to me.
However, I can't help but notice that these bdic files were developed by
the chromium people, and it seems like chrome can make use of them as
well.
As such, if these bdic files have a better name for themselves, I'd also
propose a directory that doesn't name qtwebengine, which potentially is
only one user of those files.
symlinks don't sound fun with potentially that many files, so consider
getting qtwebengine to look in that directory itself.
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
More about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
