Bug#555707: Please provide an additional package

[Andreas Tille]

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 05:25:55PM +0300, Dmitry E. Oboukhov wrote:
> AT> Thanks for the patch.
> 
> If You agree to apply the patch, I'll make some changes in it (I want
> to drop out arrows from target dictionaries)

I surely agree if it makes sense.
 
> goldendict can use dict-wn package, but dict-wn look worse than
> wordnet-goldendict, because this script was specially written to get
> the nicest form.

Ahh, OK.  Perhaps it might make sense to verify how wordnet-goldendict
might look in text interface.  It might make sense to give a nicely
formatted UI preference and live with the not so beautiful but prefectly
readable console output.
 
> I don't know how is dict-wn dictionary looked in other programs, but
> dict-* utilities (if i'm not wrong) are oriented to use in terminals,
> so their dictionaries look worse in GUI-program.

Thanks for the clarification.
 
> dict-wn CAN be used, but wordnet-goldendict has more nice form.
> Compare screenshots in attache:
> 
>     ss-dict-wn.png and ss-wordnet-goldendict.png
> 
> the first is oriented to use in terminal, the second is oriented to
> use in GUI.

The screenshots are enlighting, thanks.  How does a dict terminal would
look like with wordnet-goldendict?
 
> PS: I'm asked by a few people to add this variant into debian, but i
> think that it is a bad way to add another source with the same data.

I perfectly agree.  My goal is to present WordNet database in the best
possible way.  So I definitely agree to enhancements.  Duplicating the
source makes no sense at all.

> It would be nice and true if we could add this patch to Your package.

Sure. No problem.  I just wanted to make sure I have understood the
rationale and we will not find an alternate way with nearly the same
effect.
 
> yes, this script is quite slowly, but rebuildings do not often do, i
> think that it isn't big problem ;)

Well, the extra Ruby build dependency does hurd a bit because at home
(where I do most of my Debian work) I have a terribly slow connection
and updating pbuilder with just another Build-Depends is not really
funny.  But upstream does not change that frequently.

I'm actually a bit concerned about #549768 which might result in some
more complete rebuilds.  BTW, on which architecture did you builded the
package.  Did you aboserved any problem.
 
According to the timing.  I will have only 128kBit upload which
frequently breaks upload of larger packages like WordNet.  So I
can not upload your patch before Monday.  Please ping me if you
did not heard anything from me until Wednesday next week.

Kind regards and thanks for the patch

      Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de