Hi, [ your HTML mails make quoting hard... ]
Thanks for filing the report. 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. > 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. > However, I do think it is important that there is a consensus among all those > who maintain the dictionary language packages and that this consensus be > documented in a central location. Indeed. Regards, Rene
