[Pkg-ime-devel] [ibus] about ibus input engine packaging.

[Ma Xiaojun]

On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:06 PM, Daiki Ueno <ueno at unixuser.org> wrote:
> Well, I mean, it is easier to ship ibus-setup-<engine>.desktop in Debian
> package (and hopefully upstream it later), than patching *.xml files.
> That will make engine upstreams happier (because their engines will get
> supported by gnome-control-center as well) and may reduce the number of
> affected engine packages which we need to file bugs.  So win-win for
> Debian and the upstreams.

Yes, using a .desktop file could avoid the problem of path difference.
But the problem is that this approach is never publicly announced, and
ibus-setup in git repo still use the old approach.
If you want to make the transition of ibus-setup. IMHO, please start
with upstream, then Arch/Fedora. Debian could backport this approach
or upgrade the whole IBus stack later, I guess.

> On the other hand, <setup> is a last resort to support some setup
> programs that needs extra arguments to start up.  Using it for Debian
> local problem is not a way to go IMHO.

What's wrong with explicit <setup> ?
Exactly same thing is done for ibus-engine-*

> > Why break things when things are not broken?
>
> I don't understand your question.

Do you understand what is "stable API"?