[Pkg-ime-devel] [ibus] about ibus input engine packaging.
damage3025 at gmail.com
Sun Jun 9 10:34:28 UTC 2013
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Daiki Ueno <ueno at unixuser.org> wrote:
> Because it has not announced that <setup> is mandatory, and actually it
> is only necessary on Debian based distro. The engine upstreams might
> not be interested in merging such a change (at least, less likely than
> .desktop patch), although...
I've successfully asked mozc, ibus-pinyin and sunpinyin to add <setup>
tags. The first two actually being necessary even if there is no path
Another case is here, done by others:
There are good amount of distributions, including Debian sid at this
time, still using IBus 1.4.2 for various reasons. I don't think an
engine upstream should have questions add <setup> when the engine does
have a separable setup program.
Yes, engine upstream should support g-c-c, no matter g-c-c takes which
approach. But at least I didn't notice g-c-c being broken launching
setup programs, only ibus-setup is broken currently.
> I was asking about practical things which will be broken, not your
> theory. I think we should minimize the impact, particularly the number
> of Debian local patches which we need to maintain for the future. Have
> you compared your approach with other approaches from that point?
So if you change policy, e.g., from <setup> to ibus-setup-*.desktop .
Please announce it publicly using any of IBus channel. Please make
sure upstream ibus-setup and g-c-c work consistently. Without these
two necessary conditions, I don't think IBus stack in Debian should
follow g-c-c's approach by it own.
More information about the Pkg-ime-devel