Description of problem: hunspell-pt provides dictonaries for both pt_PT and pt_BR, but it doesn't get automatically installed along installing langpacks-pt_BR while it does when installing langpakcs-pt Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): hunspell-pt-0.20131030-3.fc36.noarch How reproducible: Reproducible if installing langpacks-pt_BR intead of langpacks-pt on Silverblue/Workstation Steps to Reproduce: 1. Try to installing langpacks-pt 2. Try to install langpacks-pt_BR 3. Compare different results Actual results: hunspell-pt won't installed for langpacks-pt_BR but will for langpacks-pt Expected results: hunspell-pt should be installed for langpacks-pt_BR Additional info: I filled bug #2084575 for this first, but I looked at the spec and the problem seems to be that the supplements line on the spec file looks like this: `Supplements: (hunspell and langpacks-pt)` I guess it should be changed so it can work for either langpacks-pt or langpacks-pt_BR.
we have Supplements: (hunspell and langpacks-pt) so indeed, presumably (hunspell and langpacks-pt and langpacks-pt_BR) would fix this
FEDORA-2022-a3e1a84140 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a3e1a84140
FEDORA-2022-a3e1a84140 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-12359bdd18 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-12359bdd18
I really wanted to have some difference between langpacks-pt and langpacks-pt_BR I am looking for some good trusted source that says langpacks-pt_BR should not include hunspell-pt
It just happens to be that hunspell-pt.spec outputs one rpm with all pt_* in it. We could change hunspell-pt.spec to output two rpms, a specific pt_BR one and then the other pt one for the rest of the variants and then langpacks-pt_BR would only include hunspell-pt-BR.
(In reply to Caolan McNamara from comment #6) > It just happens to be that hunspell-pt.spec outputs one rpm with all pt_* in > it. We could change hunspell-pt.spec to output two rpms, a specific pt_BR > one and then the other pt one for the rest of the variants and then > langpacks-pt_BR would only include hunspell-pt-BR. Just as a tip though, you might want to hold off pushing the separate rpm approach to stable for a bit due to bug 2085107 (either the backport or, of course, Gnome Software 42.2 release). Due to a bug in how Gnome Software automatically installs langpacks, pt_BR Workstation/Silverblue systems where the user lets gnome-software do that for them might only have langpacks-pt instead of langpacks-pt_BR, so if you split a separate "hunspell-pt_BR" those systems might suddenly be without spelling dictionaries.
FEDORA-2022-12359bdd18 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-12359bdd18` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-12359bdd18 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
Not fixed yet. The line `Supplements: (hunspell and langpacks-pt and langpacks-pt_BR)` will apparently make hunspell be grabbed as weak dep only if `hunspell`, `langpacks-pt` and langpacks-pt_BR` are all present at the same time. It ideally should work if only `hunspell` and `langpacks-pt` or if only `hunspell` and `hunspell-pt_BR` are present (i.e. only one of the langpacks portuguese packages is needed). I believe it should be something like this instead: ``` Supplements: (hunspell and (langpacks-pt or langpacks-pt_BR)) ```
(In reply to Mateus Rodrigues Costa from comment #9) > It ideally should work if only `hunspell` and `langpacks-pt` or if only > `hunspell` and `hunspell-pt_BR` are present (i.e. only one of the langpacks > portuguese packages is needed). > Sorry, small correction, I actually meant "if only `hunspell` and `langpacks-pt` or if only `hunspell` and `langpacks-pt_BR` are present" in this section.
FEDORA-2022-8c8ee157e6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-8c8ee157e6
FEDORA-2022-8c8ee157e6 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
I request to split this package into hunspell-pt and hunspell-pt_BR for now. When supporting package and glibc locale is available we can think about pt_AO langpack creation.
I'll have another go at fixing the current Supplements line and do the split idea later.
FEDORA-2022-b7e639ac83 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-b7e639ac83
(In reply to Parag Nemade from comment #13) > When supporting package and glibc locale is available we can think about > pt_AO langpack creation. AFAIK there's no significant difference between pt_PT and pt_AO in most things, so it should be okay to keep both together with the Angolan variation of stuff being a symlink to the one from Portugal. You would have to ask to someone who is familiar enough with Angolan Portuguese for more details though.
FEDORA-2022-b7e639ac83 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-b7e639ac83` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-b7e639ac83 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-b7e639ac83 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-5e06d684c9 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-5e06d684c9
FEDORA-2022-5e06d684c9 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-3618f33750 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-3618f33750
FEDORA-2022-3618f33750 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.