[Pkg-ime-devel] RFS: scim-kmfl-imengine

[Doug Rintoul]

Ming Hua wrote:
>
>> This "broke" kmfl as well as a few other things. I realize this is not
>> a Debian problem, but an Ubuntu problem.
>>     
>
> Then please at least keep the Debian package simple, and add the extra
> measures to the Ubuntu package.
>
>   
I am fine with this. The less I have in kmfl, the less I have to maintain.
>> The solution given was to edit /etc/X11/xinit/xinput.d/scim and change
>> the xim references to scim.
>>     
>
> This is just plainly misinformed suggestion.  Ubuntu also ships the
> scim-immodule setting, the proper way has always been using im-switch,
> instead of changing the configurations file.  I've seen such suggestions
> given elsewhere, I just don't have time to correct it every time I see
> it.
>   
I was trying to remember why I did not think scim-immodule a good 
solution and then realized that the qt im module was disabled in the 
gutsy version. But I see that the current SCIM debian package does have 
support for both qt and gtk immodules.
>>
>> This is a good option, however for reasons stated above I would rather 
>> have the user use the scim-kmfl im-switch file rather than the scim 
>> im-switch file. But I am open to suggestions.
>>     
>
> I can guarantee that scim package's im-switch setting won't change
> randomly.  And when it changes, upgrade path will be provided so that
> packages that depend on it won't break.
>
> I think as the maintainer, it's eventually your decision (and your
> sponsor's decision) to make.  But I'll just make it clear that I'm very
> against the idea of SCIM IM engine packages shipping their own im-switch
> settings.
>
>   
I will be glad to remove the scim-kmfl im-switch file from the 
scim-imengine package since scim-immodule now covers all of kmfl's 
needs. And I will use the debconf question to offer to set im-switch to 
scim-immodule if you think that would be acceptable.

Thanks Ming for taking the time to respond. Much appreciated.

Doug.