Re: myspell/hunspell relationships need update

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 03:49:32PM +0200, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> The "Debian Spelling Dictionaries and Tools Policy" mentions, what
> relationships a myspell/hunspell dictionary package should have.
> 
> From my point of view these relationships should be updated.
> 
> Currently we have the following:
> 
> > * hunspell and myspell dictionary packages should declare a Suggests
> >   on Libreoffice or OpenOffice.org and on the Mozilla flavors in
> >   Debian that support the spellchecker. Something like 
> > 
> >   Suggests: hunspell,
> >    libreoffice-core | openoffice.org-hunspell | openoffice.org-core (>= 2.0.2),
> >    iceape-browser | iceweasel | icedove
> 
> We should remove openoffice.org completely here and we should replace
> iceweasel by firefox.

Agreed, 

> But my more important question is: shouldn't we remove this complete
> bullet point?
> Why do we suggest some randomly chosen programs, that use hunspell/myspell?
> Even hunspell itself (the command line version, in contrast to
> libhunspell-1.4) doesn't make much sense as a "Suggests", since it is
> seldom used, while most users use the library via Firefox, LibreOffice
> or some other programs.

At least Emacs uses a pipe to plain hunspell. The point here is that
installing a hunspell dictionary should suggest that it needs to be
installed along with something that uses it, so I do not think that the
suggests is bogus. Other thing is what are the contents of the suggests
line,

> > * myspell dictionary packages must Conflict: against openoffice.org (<= 1.0.3-2)
> > 
> > * hunspell dictionary packages should conflict against old versions of
> >   Mozilla / OpenOffice.org not supporting hunspell 
> > 
> >   mozilla-browser (<< 1.8+1.1.1-2),
> >    iceape-browser (<< 1.1.1-2),
> >    firefox (<< 2.0.0.3-2),
> >    thunderbird (<< 2.0.0.1+0dfsg-0),
> >    iceweasel (<< 2.0.0.3-2),
> >    icedove (<< 2.0.0.0-4),
> >    libxul0d (= 1.8.0.11-3),
> >    openoffice.org (<= 1.0.3-2),
> >    openoffice.org-core (<< 2.1~m190-1)
> > 
> > * The myspell/hunspell packages having an "old" version named
> >   openoffice.org-spellcheck-* (regardless of whether that was in
> >   Debian once or not) must declare the magic Conflicts: / Provides: /
> >   Replaces: combination "against" the old package.
> 
> These very old conflicts don't hurt, but does it really make sense to
> keep them in the policy and in the package control files?  None of the
> mentioned package versions is available in jessie, wheezy, or squeeze,
> so I'd suggest removing these completely from the policy and in the
> consequence from the hunspell/myspell-packages.

They are really old, I do not think there is a good reason to keep them.

What do you think, Rene?

-- 
Agustin