<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8"> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.1.9"> </HEAD> <BODY> On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 15:37 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE>Le sam, 10/04/2004 à 15:11 +0300, j'ai écrit : > On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 11:30 +0200, M. Fioretti wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 11:00:48 AM +1000, Phil Anderson (<A HREF="mailto:phil@phil-anderson.com">phil@phil-anderson.com</A>) wrote: > > > > > > Do you think I should use one big source RPM for all the languages? > > > > Please no, keep them separated. In addition to the reason you mention, > > saving space on disk is never a bad idea. > > > He meant Source RPM as in .src.rpm or .srpm > Just like for other packages the binaries can be split. kernel is also > only one __SOURCE__ package but multiple binaries > (i386/i586/i686/docs/source) > > Haveing a single source package is a better sollution because you can > have a consistent way of patching things, and only one spec file. > > My vote goes for "1 source package" and "1 binary package for each > language". If you take a look on the release dates on the oo.o site you'll see dictionnaries are not synched with oo.o releases (in fact some of them stay the same for years). So separate SRPMS is the way to go IMHO (which might require some logic in oo.o to get stuff in an unversionned dir, much like the plugins dir for moz) Cheers,</PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> I never suggested the same .src.rpm with oo.o. I just said that there should be only one openoffice.org-dicts-$ver.src.rpm and multiple binary rpms: openoffice.org-dicts-$lang-$ver.noarch.rpm. I belive that kde does the same with kde-i18n, and over there, some translations are better, others worst. <S>Cheers</S> Beers :-P </BODY> </HTML>