Re: aspell dictionary packages fail to build
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 04:34:05PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote: > Howdy, > > The aspell dictionary packages build-depend on aspell-bin (>> 0.60). > aspell-bin is now a virtual package provided by aspell, but virtual > packages cannot be versioned, so these build-dependency cannot be > satisfied. > > There are fifteen such packages: Actually, it's worse than that. Almost every aspell dictionary package is broken right now. [...] > Should I file bugs against each of these packages? Should I contact > the maintainers directly via email? Should I email d-d-a? Normally, I would have contacted the maintainers beforehand about the breakage. However, Agustin and I are currently finalizing support for building the dictionary hashes at install time. Once that's ready, the plan is to transition all of the dictionary packages to use the hash building sytem. You may start filing bugs against each of aspell dictionaries (minus aspell-en, aspell-es, and possibly a couple others) if you'd like, but I suggest that the maintainers wait to fix the bugs until Agustin and I have written a dictionary transition document. -- Society is never going to make any progress until we all learn to pretend to like each other. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: aspell dictionary packages fail to build
Matt Kraai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 05:01:03PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: >> > The aspell dictionary packages build-depend on aspell-bin (>> 0.60). >> > aspell-bin is now a virtual package provided by aspell, but virtual >> > packages cannot be versioned, so these build-dependency cannot be >> > satisfied. >> > >> > There are fifteen such packages: >> >> I'd see a benefit in filing mail beforehand for a change, but >> after-the-fact, I have an impression that it's better to >> file bugs on the packages since it's easier to track the problem that way. >> >> Unless there is a chance of reintroducing aspell-bin package, >> that should probably be the case. >> >> I think this is the call of aspell maintainer. > > Brian, are you planning to reintroduce the aspell-bin package or > should I file bugs against the packages that fail to build? > > -- > Matt And could someone please please please fix the current aspell first: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=31 It is realy pointless fixing and uploading anything with Build-Depends on aspell as long as it is uninstallable. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: aspell dictionary packages fail to build
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 05:01:03PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > The aspell dictionary packages build-depend on aspell-bin (>> 0.60). > > aspell-bin is now a virtual package provided by aspell, but virtual > > packages cannot be versioned, so these build-dependency cannot be > > satisfied. > > > > There are fifteen such packages: > > I'd see a benefit in filing mail beforehand for a change, but > after-the-fact, I have an impression that it's better to > file bugs on the packages since it's easier to track the problem that way. > > Unless there is a chance of reintroducing aspell-bin package, > that should probably be the case. > > I think this is the call of aspell maintainer. Brian, are you planning to reintroduce the aspell-bin package or should I file bugs against the packages that fail to build? -- Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: aspell dictionary packages fail to build
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 04:34:05PM -0700, Matt Kraai wrote: > Howdy, > > The aspell dictionary packages build-depend on aspell-bin (>> 0.60). > aspell-bin is now a virtual package provided by aspell, but virtual > packages cannot be versioned, so these build-dependency cannot be > satisfied. That should be changed, (versioned) build dependency should now be on aspell if they do not use aspell-autobuildhash, or use aspell prezip. There are other things to be changed, aspell lib/data location, virtual package provided, ... > > There are fifteen such packages: > ... > aspell-es > This one is now created from espa-nol source package, and is already fixed. I already asked for aspell-es (source package) removal from unstable (#317950). On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 05:01:03PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > I'd see a benefit in filing mail beforehand for a change, but > after-the-fact, I have an impression that it's better to > file bugs on the packages since it's easier to track the problem that way. > > Unless there is a chance of reintroducing aspell-bin package, > that should probably be the case. > > I think this is the call of aspell maintainer. Agreed, better leave this task to aspell maintainer. -- Agustin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: aspell dictionary packages fail to build
Hi, > The aspell dictionary packages build-depend on aspell-bin (>> 0.60). > aspell-bin is now a virtual package provided by aspell, but virtual > packages cannot be versioned, so these build-dependency cannot be > satisfied. > > There are fifteen such packages: I'd see a benefit in filing mail beforehand for a change, but after-the-fact, I have an impression that it's better to file bugs on the packages since it's easier to track the problem that way. Unless there is a chance of reintroducing aspell-bin package, that should probably be the case. I think this is the call of aspell maintainer. regards, junichi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
aspell dictionary packages fail to build
Howdy, The aspell dictionary packages build-depend on aspell-bin (>> 0.60). aspell-bin is now a virtual package provided by aspell, but virtual packages cannot be versioned, so these build-dependency cannot be satisfied. There are fifteen such packages: aspell-br aspell-cy aspell-de aspell-de-alt aspell-el aspell-es aspell-fr aspell-ga aspell-is aspell-it aspell-pt aspell-sk aspell-sl aspell-sv aspell-ukr Should I file bugs against each of these packages? Should I contact the maintainers directly via email? Should I email d-d-a? -- Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
