Re: [Dict-common-dev] vim-spellfiles packages

On Fri, Dec 15, 2006 at 01:40:05PM +0200, K??stutis Bili??nas wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In the debian/experimental archive are the vim-spellfiles packages.
> Isn't it is must be controlled and must depend on the dict-common
> package? Now is absolutely indistinct what versions of the dictionaries
> are used.

I think that there is currently no need to depend on dictionaries-common.
wordlists and ispell dicts depend on dictionaries-common because of the
default selection mechanism, and for the later also because of emacs and
for some of them because of autobuildhash. emacs and for some of them
autobuildhash are also the reasons why an aspell dict depends on
dictionaries-common, and the integration with openoffice the reason why
myspell/hunspell dicts depend on it. Nothing of this kind seems to happen
for vim-spellfiles.

> We probably do not need to have different source packages
> (different wordlists) for myspell and vim-spell.

Agreed with this, In all cases where the sources are the same seems a
waste of space keeping them separate. However, is not the case for
spanish, where a different dict is used (I am not yet using it for
aspell/myspell, although is the one currently shipped with upstream
openoffice), but is surely the case for most other dicts.

Another thing I do not know is what vim spellcheck feature adds to the
current ispell/aspell/myspell/hunspell set of spellcheckers, but that
definitely belongs to vim upstream.

I am sending this mail also to the Debian VIM Maintainers mailing list
to know what they think about not duplicating sources.

By the way, are the vim spellcheck files free of endianess problems?, they
are currently arch all.

-- 
Agustin