Description of problem: LyX spell check does not work on Fedora rawhide (F11 development) Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): lyx-1.6.2-2.fc11.x86_64 How reproducible: Every time Steps to Reproduce: 1. Start LyX 2. Type something 3. Run spell check and see the resulting error Actual results: Spell check doesn't work - the error is: --- The spellchecker could not be started No word lists can be found for the language "en_US". Expected results: Spell check works
My apologies, I just needed the aspell-en package. I did not think this would be necessary though, given http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureDictionary Is this information advertised somewhere? If so, then I think this bug could be safely closed. It might be useful to be more explicit somewhere about this in the packaging itself though.
lyx indeed doesn't support hunspell, only aspell, but aspell *used* to Requires: aspell-en but this dependency was dropped. not sure why... pinging aspell maintainer... aspell's changelog says * Thu Feb 12 2009 ... 12:0.60.6-4 - remove aspell-en require but doesn't include the reasoning. It would appear, as is the case here, that aspell-based apps don't work out-of-the-box without it. Care to explain, please?
aspell-en is not necessary dependency for aspell - so it should not be there (because of non-en people).
Doesn't the precence of this bug invalidate that assertion (aspell-en being not necessary)? What is the expected behavior of aspell-using apps in the absence of any installed dictionaries?
For me it seems it leaves to user the right to chose which dictionary he or she wants and does not implicitly install English dictionary to people who does not use it.
Consider this, most(all?) aspell dictionaries are referenced in comps' language support groups (good), except aspell-en (bad). How is aspell-en ever going to get installed, except via manual intervention? OK, looking closer in comps, I see in the hunspell case, in @base group: <packagereq type="conditional" requires="hunspell">hunspell-en</packagereq> perhaps aspell could be treated similarly. That would only help in initial install, mind you, not afterward, but at least it's a step in the right direction. Would you have any objection to my requesting the addition of: <packagereq type="conditional" requires="aspell">aspell-en</packagereq> ?
reassigning, pending comps feedback.
discussed with some rel-eng folk on irc, and seems comps is agreeable. Added conditional requires to @base group in comps.
*** Bug 507228 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***