bundling of dictionaries in upcoming OpenOffice.org versions

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

bundling of dictionaries in upcoming OpenOffice.org versions

Martin Hollmichel - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
Hi,

OpenOffice.org now comes with various dictionaries preinstalled with the
full installation set for the various localization.

To take full advantage of the online update notification mechanism, it
is important, that

* as many dictionaries as possible should be already bundled with the
OpenOffice.org installation sets. This is in most cases not a problem
with a LGPL compatible license (such as MPL, MIT, BSD, (L)GPL ) and
should find they home in the OOo source tree (see
http://svn.services.openoffice.org/ooo/trunk/dictionaries/ for the
already existing dictionaries)

* having done this the second important issue vanishes automatically,
the different versions of the same dictionaries should have the same
identifier value so that the user will be able to get automated updates
from the preinstalled dictionary towards the updated version in the
repository.

e.g. we now have the Russian dictionary in the extension repository wit
this value:

identifier value="org.openoffice.ro.dictionaries.ru"

and the one bundled in OOo:

identifier value="org.openoffice.ru.hunspell.dictionaries"

having the most recent version in the repository also help that the
latest version will get included in new releases of OpenOffice.org
automagically,

Martin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bundling of dictionaries in upcoming OpenOffice.org versions

Marcin Miłkowski
Martin Hollmichel pisze:

> Hi,
>
> OpenOffice.org now comes with various dictionaries preinstalled with the
> full installation set for the various localization.
>
> To take full advantage of the online update notification mechanism, it
> is important, that
>
> * as many dictionaries as possible should be already bundled with the
> OpenOffice.org installation sets. This is in most cases not a problem
> with a LGPL compatible license (such as MPL, MIT, BSD, (L)GPL ) and
> should find they home in the OOo source tree (see
> http://svn.services.openoffice.org/ooo/trunk/dictionaries/ for the
> already existing dictionaries)
>
> * having done this the second important issue vanishes automatically,
> the different versions of the same dictionaries should have the same
> identifier value so that the user will be able to get automated updates
> from the preinstalled dictionary towards the updated version in the
> repository.
>
> e.g. we now have the Russian dictionary in the extension repository wit
> this value:
>
> identifier value="org.openoffice.ro.dictionaries.ru"
>
> and the one bundled in OOo:
>
> identifier value="org.openoffice.ru.hunspell.dictionaries"
>
> having the most recent version in the repository also help that the
> latest version will get included in new releases of OpenOffice.org
> automagically,

Just a note for dictionary pack authors: the version number should be
the current day in the format: YYYY.MM.DD, otherwise your dictionary
won't be recognized as a newer version.

Regards
Marcin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bundling of dictionaries in upcoming OpenOffice.org versions

Daniel Naber-9
In reply to this post by Martin Hollmichel - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
On Mittwoch, 1. Oktober 2008, Martin Hollmichel wrote:

> This is in most cases not a problem
> with a LGPL compatible license (such as MPL, MIT, BSD, (L)GPL ) and
> should find they home in the OOo source tree (see
> http://svn.services.openoffice.org/ooo/trunk/dictionaries/ for the
> already existing dictionaries)

BTW, the de_DE/VERSION file doesn't contain the real version number, it
should be 20071211, as can be seen in de_DE.dic.

Regards
 Daniel

--
http://www.danielnaber.de

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bundling of dictionaries in upcoming OpenOffice.org versions

Mathias Bauer
Daniel Naber wrote:

> On Mittwoch, 1. Oktober 2008, Martin Hollmichel wrote:
>
>> This is in most cases not a problem
>> with a LGPL compatible license (such as MPL, MIT, BSD, (L)GPL ) and
>> should find they home in the OOo source tree (see
>> http://svn.services.openoffice.org/ooo/trunk/dictionaries/ for the
>> already existing dictionaries)
>
> BTW, the de_DE/VERSION file doesn't contain the real version number, it
> should be 20071211, as can be seen in de_DE.dic.

That's a tricky thing. The version number in the VERSION file is the
version of the dictionary itself (as this exists outside of OOo), but
the version number of the extension doesn't need to be the same. Or am I
wrong here?

But *if* we chose to use the same version number for both of them, the
extension surely should take it over from the dictionary.

Regards,
athias


--
Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer
OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
Please don't reply to "[hidden email]".
I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bundling of dictionaries in upcoming OpenOffice.org versions

Mathias Bauer
In reply to this post by Marcin Miłkowski
Hi Marcin,

Marcin Miłkowski wrote:

> Just a note for dictionary pack authors: the version number should be
> the current day in the format: YYYY.MM.DD, otherwise your dictionary
> won't be recognized as a newer version.

AFAIK the version number must be a string that contains digits and
separators (dots) so that newer versions can be detected by simple
numerical comparisons. I would be very surprised if e.g. OOo couldn't
recognize that 1.0.1 is newer than 1.0.0. But to make sure I will ask
the experts and report.

True is that newer versions of a dictionary should stick to the
versioning system the extension uses. Most of the bundled dictionaries
indeed have the versioning schema YYYY.MM.DD. I chose that because it
makes finding version numbers easier, but I did that only for all
dictionaries we already had collected so far.

Dictionaries that have been created later from already existing
extensions may have taken over the versioning schema used in the
extensions in the repository. IIRC these were the French and German
dictionaries, perhaps the same was true for Galician and Vietnamese (I
don't remember exactly, sorry).

So to be on the safe side: if you were going to provide an update in our
extensions repository, you should have a look on the versioning schema
of the bundled extension and increase the version number in a way that
OOo understands it and that makes sense to you.

Regards,
Mathias

--
Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer
OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
Please don't reply to "[hidden email]".
I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bundling of dictionaries in upcoming OpenOffice.org versions

Olivier Hallot
In reply to this post by Martin Hollmichel - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
Martin Hollmichel escreveu:
> having the most recent version in the repository also help that the
> latest version will get included in new releases of OpenOffice.org
> automagically,
>
> Martin

Hi Martin

Does this means that we can update the dictionary for the 3.00 release?
in the case of pt-BR we have a new and improved dictionary. I have
posted it in issue

http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=92532

But it has not caught attention since then (Wed Aug  6 ). Is there any
chances that this will go thru?

Also, to get acess to the SVN, I guess I have to fill and sign a form...
isn't it?

Thank you

--
Olivier Hallot
Scinergy Consulting
Tel (021) 2224-3224, (021) 8822-8812
Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
http://www.scinergy.com.br
OpenOffice.org L10N project leader for Brazil



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bundling of dictionaries in upcoming OpenOffice.org versions

Daniel Naber-9
In reply to this post by Mathias Bauer
On Donnerstag, 2. Oktober 2008, Mathias Bauer wrote:

> > BTW, the de_DE/VERSION file doesn't contain the real version number,
> > it should be 20071211, as can be seen in de_DE.dic.
>
> That's a tricky thing. The version number in the VERSION file is the
> version of the dictionary itself (as this exists outside of OOo), but
> the version number of the extension doesn't need to be the same. Or am I
> wrong here?

I'm not sure I'm following you: the number is not just some number, but the
date the maintainer released his/her dictionary, so if the dictionary was
released on 2007-12-11, then 20071211 should be used as a version number
everywhere. But I have no idea if the "VERSION" file is used at all or if
it's just lying around in CVS without any use.

Regards
 Daniel

--
http://www.danielnaber.de

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bundling of dictionaries in upcoming OpenOffice.org versions

Martin Hollmichel - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
In reply to this post by Martin Hollmichel - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg
Olivier Hallot wrote:

> Martin Hollmichel escreveu:
>> having the most recent version in the repository also help that the
>> latest version will get included in new releases of OpenOffice.org
>> automagically,
>>
>> Martin
>
> Hi Martin
>
> Does this means that we can update the dictionary for the 3.00 release?
> in the case of pt-BR we have a new and improved dictionary. I have
> posted it in issue
>
> http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=92532
>
> But it has not caught attention since then (Wed Aug  6 ). Is there any
> chances that this will go thru?
>
I wish I would have seen this issue more early. I now have set target 3.0.1.

> Also, to get acess to the SVN, I guess I have to fill and sign a form...
> isn't it?
yes, at the moment the prerequisite to gain commit access is to sign the
SCA, but since this is external LGPL code, also somebody else can take
over this task,
>
> Thank you
>
Martin


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bundling of dictionaries in upcoming OpenOffice.org versions

Mathias Bauer
In reply to this post by Daniel Naber-9
Daniel Naber wrote:

> On Donnerstag, 2. Oktober 2008, Mathias Bauer wrote:
>
>> > BTW, the de_DE/VERSION file doesn't contain the real version number,
>> > it should be 20071211, as can be seen in de_DE.dic.
>>
>> That's a tricky thing. The version number in the VERSION file is the
>> version of the dictionary itself (as this exists outside of OOo), but
>> the version number of the extension doesn't need to be the same. Or am I
>> wrong here?
>
> I'm not sure I'm following you: the number is not just some number, but the
> date the maintainer released his/her dictionary, so if the dictionary was
> released on 2007-12-11, then 20071211 should be used as a version number
> everywhere. But I have no idea if the "VERSION" file is used at all or if
> it's just lying around in CVS without any use.

IIRC the "VERSION" file was part of the download of the dictionary and
so it was committed to cvs after unpacking.

We should ask the dictionary owner. That doesn't change my
recommendation for dictionaries in general: if you are going to provide
an update, please check the versioning scheme and the version number of
the bundled extension.

Ciao,
Mathias

--
Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer
OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
Please don't reply to "[hidden email]".
I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: bundling of dictionaries in upcoming OpenOffice.org versions

stephan.bergmann
In reply to this post by Mathias Bauer
On 02.10.08 10:14, Mathias Bauer wrote:

> Hi Marcin,
>
> Marcin Miłkowski wrote:
>
>> Just a note for dictionary pack authors: the version number should be
>> the current day in the format: YYYY.MM.DD, otherwise your dictionary
>> won't be recognized as a newer version.
>
> AFAIK the version number must be a string that contains digits and
> separators (dots) so that newer versions can be detected by simple
> numerical comparisons. I would be very surprised if e.g. OOo couldn't
> recognize that 1.0.1 is newer than 1.0.0. But to make sure I will ask
> the experts and report.

Correct (see
<http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Extension_Versions>).
  Especially, schemes like YYYY.MM.DD or just YYYYMMDD will work as
expected.

-Stephan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]