Bug#1020387: dictionaries-common: Consensus regarding the packaging of the Qt WebEngine hunspell binary dictionaries
Lisandro Damian Nicanor Perez Meyer
perezmeyer at gmail.com
Thu Feb 16 01:24:30 GMT 2023
On martes, 14 de febrero de 2023 19:28:53 -03 Soren Stoutner wrote:
> Which part do you not understand about not being needed on both Qt 5 and Qt
> 6? The part about building the .bdic files or the part about Qt WebEngine
> using the .bdic files at runtime?
Sorry, wrong question on my side.
I just went trough the whole thread. I understand that these bdic files are
needed for packages that use Qt[5 6]webengine. But I do not like the idea of
**other** packages making use of them.
Let me explain you why:
- webengine is the most complicated package we handle, it is the very example
of a PITA. It embeds the world, it takes ages to compile, it has weird
errors...
- Hunspell dictionaries should be handled by... hunspell. Yes, I know this was
considered and it's still not possible. But the fact that webengine ships them
is not enough a reason to expose them to the world instead of doing the right
thing: handling them there.
- They are not built by default by Qt itself. This is weird... or they do not
want to handle possible build errors. Should we Qt maintainers? No.
- If the patches are taken and at some point webengine upstreams decide to
switch to something else then we the Qt maintainers get the broken pieces.
Insta RC bugs, we get this package stopped from migrating to testing until
solving the issue... a pain.
So no, I'm totally against these change. Dmitry, Patrick: my suggestion is to
reverse the patches.
More information about the pkg-kde-talk
mailing list