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

Daiki Ueno ueno at unixuser.org
Sun Jun 9 23:07:23 UTC 2013

Ma Xiaojun <damage3025 at gmail.com> writes:

> 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
> finding issue.

> Another case is here, done by others:
> https://github.com/bochecha/ibus-cangjie/issues/24

Well, I don't oppose to use <setup> at all, as for the first two you
mentioned, but I'm opposing to use it for the unnecessary situation
(e.g. band-aid for Debian's libexec problem).

>From this point of view, you have only succeeded to convince the
sunpinyin and ibus-cangjie upstreams.  What about ibus-chewing,
ibus-hangul, ibus-skk, ibus-unikey, etc?  For ibus-skk, I don't like to
merge such a change, which will be unnecessary in the future, once...

> Please make sure upstream ibus-setup and g-c-c work consistently.

...this has been done.  By the way,

>> 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 .

You are missing the point.  I was saying that <setup> change will cause
bunch of Debian local patches in engine packages until it will be merged
in the upstreams (and it might be unlikely).  There are a few other
approaches which could avoid the problem (for example, Ying-Chun's
symlink idea, and my desktop idea).

Why do you think your idea is always best?

More information about the Pkg-ime-devel mailing list