OpenOffice.org Dictionaries

[Razvan Corneliu C.R. "d3vi1" VILT]

On Sat, 2004-04-10 at 15:37 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:


> 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 (phil at phil-anderson.com) 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,


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.

Cheers
Beers :-P

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20040410/5e45438a/attachment.htm>