Yavor Doganov writes: > Георги Данчев wrote: > > Yes, I received that > > OK, sorry I got the opposite impression. > > > However, it doesn't strike me like extremely elegant design to ship > > a file with the package (to please certain design decisions taken in > > another package, dictionaries-common in that case) which will then > > be regenerated by the maintainer scripts. > > AFAICT, you don't have to ship an empty file in the package [1], you > just have to take care to remove it. It's just that Anton decided to > do this for bg.rws, so I followed the same approach for the other > file. > > [1] The manpage uses the mild words "You are also suggested to..."
In opinion, that suggestion is suboptimal, if not entirely wrong. I believe the man-page should not recommend such approach at all, but let's see what the maintainer's comments on that matter. > > I really want to get to the bottom of it whether > > aspell-autobuildhash really needs the approach mentioned in the > > man-page. > > It doesn't need it, I think (a proof is that bg-en.rws was not a file > in the package before bgoffice/3.0-11, but it was still generated). > The only discomfort is having unowned files in /var/lib/aspell, and > taking care to remove them manually on remove/purge. By manually I believe you mean postrm, which is what it is meant for. > Probably the process could be triggerized, if it's not too much work. Could be., though that would require corresponding tweaking on the dictionaries-common package too. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
