Re: scim and assorted packages
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 07:30:11PM +0200, Toni Mueller wrote:
> today I received an email from the FTP masters that a pacakge that is
> highly relevant to me, has been pulled from Debian. I understand that
> most folks are now looking at that ibus stuff (which is imho not ready
> for prime time, yet), but would like to understand better how a package
> with only 1 normal and 2 minor bugs can be pulled, and... how I can stay
> at the front of this.
> /me tries to carve out some time to aid in scim packaging, which still
> has a *much*, *much* wider range of supported languages and scripts than
> ibus (saying ibus is a replacement for scim is an euphemism, at best).
This is because no one wished to maintain it in IME Packaging Team
<email@example.com>. I approved you to join.
I understand ibus in current state is pain for dead-key lovers and scim
has few more Chinese input method support (the lack of support for some
of those for ibus was license review caused them to be blocked. We
never raised issue for scim since it was EOL at this moment.)
The current SCIM package in Debian does not use scim-bridge-*. The
current scim maintainer thought it was not needed. This makes scim
quite unstable for every CPP abi change problem. Also it source has
been in zombie state for long time.
If you read BTS of related packages, you get to understand what has
If dead key is the pain point, packaging upstream unstable branch 1.4.99
(to be 1.5) for ibus is said to fix it. But we have upstream stable
version 1.4.1 for ibus. It seems some configuration features of 1.5
ibus is not as complete as 1.4.1 one. This needs to be checked. I
think fixing this bug for 1.4.1 by back porting may be one option.
We can continue ime specific issues at
PS: What do you find missing in ibus?
We have 57 ibus* packages
We have 17 scim* packages