Hi all!
(And sorry for the late response. debian-qt-kde@lists.debian.org is a
list for bots, so I didn't get it in my inbox. It's better to use
pkg-kde-t...@alioth-lists.debian.net or @packages.debian.org.)
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 10:43:06AM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> Can one of the Debian Qt
Agustin,
On Tuesday, December 13, 2022 11:14:22 AM MST Agustin Martin wrote:
> I modified installdeb-myspell to look for both, with qt6 version
> preferred. In policy document, I commented about qt5 version
> existence, but discouraging its use as it will disappear sooner. In
> theory it could be
El mar, 13 dic 2022 a las 18:43, Soren Stoutner () escribió:
>
> Can one of the Debian Qt/KDE maintainers weigh in on the feasibility of
> either creating a meta package that depends on the most recent package that
> includes qwebengine_convert_dict or creating an unversioned package that
> inst
Agustin,
You are correct that there are currently two copies in Debian, one that comes
with the Qt 5
packages and the other that comes with the Qt 6 packages.
Can one of the Debian Qt/KDE maintainers weigh in on the feasibility of either
creating a
meta package that depends on the most recent
That’s really cool. Thank you for doing that.
On Friday, December 9, 2022 11:09:00 AM MST Agustin Martin wrote:
> By the way, I have been playing with an old helper
> (installdeb-myspell) shipped with dictionaries-common-dev to help with
> these bdic files. First cut committed to salsa. Currently
El mar, 6 dic 2022 a las 23:34, Agustin Martin
() escribió:
>
> El dom, 4 dic 2022 a las 4:54, Soren Stoutner () escribió:
> >
> > I created an MR:
> >
> > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/dictionaries-common/-/merge_requests/5
> >
> > Please review and make sure I haven’t missed anything or misrepr
El dom, 4 dic 2022 a las 4:54, Soren Stoutner () escribió:
>
> I created an MR:
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/dictionaries-common/-/merge_requests/5
>
> Please review and make sure I haven’t missed anything or misrepresented the
> consensus.
Merged.
Will wait some days for possible new com
I created an MR:
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/dictionaries-common/-/merge_requests/5[1]
Please review and make sure I haven’t missed anything or misrepresented the
consensus.
On Thursday, November 17, 2022 2:25:17 PM MST Soren Stoutner wrote:
> At this point, the only question left is where
No current changes are needed to QT WebEngine as it currently exists in
Debian. It works just fine as long as the dictionaries are in the canonical
location (or that canonical location is a symlink to the actual location).
I have written some descriptions of my testing of this in earlier posts
Hi,
On Wed, 9 Nov 2022 at 15:13, Soren Stoutner wrote:
[snip]
> This would also require the the Debain Qt/KDE Maintainers add a symlink from /
> usr/share/qt5/qtwebengine_dictionaries and /usr/share/qt6/
> qtwebengine_dictionaries to /usr/share/hunspell-bdic. They can do this in
> whatever packa
On Thursday, November 17, 2022 3:18:17 PM MST Mattia Rizzolo wrote:>
> What I do want to see *before* we actually release a lo-dicts with these
> is something that actually reads and make use of them *first*.
Privacy Browser PC uses them.
https://www.stoutner.com/privacy-browser-pc/[1]
I would
On Thu, Nov 17, 2022 at 02:25:17PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> Based on the lack of opposition, it seems that the following is the consensus
> for packaging .bdic files.
thanks for driving this silent resolution ahah :D
> 1. The .bdic files should be compiled at package creation time.
> 2.
Based on the lack of opposition, it seems that the following is the consensus
for packaging .bdic files.
1. The .bdic files should be compiled at package creation time.
2. The .bdic files should be included in the existing Hunspell language binary
packages.
3. The .bdic files should be instal
On Sunday, November 13, 2022 3:13:55 PM MST Agustin Martin wrote:
> It is to note that even that 10 years code apparently has support for
> the IGNORE flag, unsupported by the .bdic dicts. Fortunately, seems
> that there are not many dicts using that flag in
> libreoffice-dictionaries.
>
> libreof
El jue, 3 nov 2022 a las 23:33, Soren Stoutner () escribió:
>
> On Friday, October 28, 2022 4:09:45 AM MST Agustin Martin wrote:
> > I am not particularly happy about this (see details below), but seems
> > we will have to package all these .bdic files because qtwebengine and
> > chromium use them.
I would take the lack of response to indicate that nobody has any strong
objections to packaging the .bdic files inside the existing Hunspell binary
packages.
This means that there is a consensus on the following two items:
1. The .bdic files should be compiled at package creation time instead
On Friday, October 28, 2022 4:09:45 AM MST Agustin Martin wrote:
> I am not particularly happy about this (see details below), but seems
> we will have to package all these .bdic files because qtwebengine and
> chromium use them. Since some .bdic may fail to build I would rather
> prefer them to be
El mar, 25 oct 2022 a las 20:43, Soren Stoutner () escribió:
>
> While we wait for answers as to whether these dictionaries can be used by the
> Chromium package and how they might possibly be integrated with upstream
> Hunspell, I would recommend that we move forward with packaging them in /usr/
>
While we wait for answers as to whether these dictionaries can be used by the
Chromium package and how they might possibly be integrated with upstream
Hunspell, I would recommend that we move forward with packaging them in /usr/
share/hunspell-bdic. This location provides flexibility for whateve
On Friday, October 14, 2022 11:58:17 AM MST Andres Salomon wrote:
> That would allow chromium and other hunspell users to link against a
> system hunspell when desired, dropping all the bdict versioning stuff
> and the custom paths. I'm pretty sure I could get a patch to link
> against system hunsp
On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 02:58:17PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> In my opinion, chromium's (, or QT's, or whoever's) bdic support should be
> merged upstream into hunspell, and hunspell should be shipping bdic files in
> /usr/share/hunspell alongside the .aff and .dic files. I don't know how
> act
On Fri, Oct 14 2022 at 12:54:53 PM +0200, Roland Rosenfeld
wrote:
Hi,
let me try to summarize where we stand and what options and open
questions we have.
I see the following options to package the bdic-Files (seems not all
of them were already mentioned before):
a) Bundle the bdic files i
FYI:
Chromium includes an embedded copy of the hunspell library, which
they've forked to ignore dic/aff files and instead use bdic files. The
patch and google additions can be found here:
https://sources.debian.org/src/chromium/106.0.5249.119-1/third_party/hunspell/google.patch/
https://sour
> It doesn’t directly address the topic of endianess, but it does say
> the following:
>
> "The .bdic files are always UTF-8 internally, and the convert_dict
> tool converts things appropriately when it runs.”
>
> I must admit that the topic of endianess goes a bit beyond my
> expertise, but my u
This is Google’s page describing the .bdic format:
https://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/developers/how-tos/editing-the-spell-checking-dictionaries[1]
It doesn’t directly address the topic of endianess, but it does say the
following:
"The .bdic files are always UTF-8 internally, and the c
On Friday, October 14, 2022 3:54:53 AM MST Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> - Where should the bdic files be placed?
> 1) /usr/share/hunspell-bdic
I like this option because it would eliminate the need to wait to find out if
Chromium can use the files before deciding where to put them.
On a separate
Hi,
let me try to summarize where we stand and what options and open
questions we have.
I see the following options to package the bdic-Files (seems not all
of them were already mentioned before):
a) Bundle the bdic files in the existing hunspell- files.
- Pro: no new packages needed
- Con
I submitted three upstream bugs.
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-107599[1]
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-107600[2]
https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-107601[3]
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@stoutner.com
[1] https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-107599
[2] https://bugreports
On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 9:38:09 AM MST Soren Stoutner wrote:
> > ++ processing gl_ES.aff
> > gl_ES.dic_delta not found.
> > Reading gl_ES.aff
> > Reading gl_ES.dic
> > Serializing...
> > Verifying...
> > Word does not match!
> >
> > Index:2126
> > Expected: Abū po:antropónimo
> >
>
On Wednesday, October 5, 2022 5:07:50 AM MST Agustin Martin wrote:
> El jue, 22 sept 2022 a las 21:30, Soren Stoutner
> One noticeable thing is that bdic generation failed for some hunspell
> dicts I have installed
That’s concerning.
> ++ processing an_ES.aff
> [1003/125813.760330:FATAL:aff_read
El jue, 22 sept 2022 a las 21:30, Soren Stoutner
() escribió:
>
> On Thursday, September 22, 2022 9:20:46 AM MST Agustin Martin wrote:
>
> > First of all, I am curious about the reasons behind this new format,
> > the problems it deals with and its advantages. I assume they are valid
> > enough, bu
On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 8:29:30 PM MST Andres Salomon wrote:
> The "team" would just be me (wanna join? :),
Currently my interests lie elsewhere, but I may reconsider that in the future.
> and I had to do some
> security uploads today and haven't had the chance to look further into
> this.
The "team" would just be me (wanna join? :), and I had to do some
security uploads today and haven't had the chance to look further into
this. Unfortunately, there's a few other high-priority things I need to
deal with before I can take a look.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 20:27, Soren Stoutner
w
Does anyone from the Chromium team have any insights
into the feasibility of Chromium using a system-wide
directory for .bdic files?
--
Soren Stoutner
so...@stoutner.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Thursday, September 22, 2022 9:20:46 AM MST Agustin Martin wrote:
> First of all, I am curious about the reasons behind this new format,
> the problems it deals with and its advantages. I assume they are valid
> enough, but they imply yet another spellchecking engine/format. We
> currently have
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 i
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 i
37 matches
Mail list logo
