Re: im-config | Use im-config on Wayland without uninstalling IBus (!5)
2020년 5월 25일 (월) 오후 11:53, Gunnar Hjalmarsson <gunnarhj@ubuntu.com>님이 작성:
> > I think the UI needs an update to be more clear. But please don't
> > insist to change underlying software for a frontend UI.
>
> Eh.. Yes. The frontend UI is the starting point on a desktop. The
> underlying code should be written to support the desired look and
> behavior of the UI. Not the other way around.
Not really. You know, im-config has never been written for the Ubuntu
UI. im-config itself has a standalone command line and graphics
interface. The Ubuntu UI just wrapped it later and it's not in Debian.
A wrapping can't be a guideline of how im-config works.
I really think it's time to consider updating the UI. Or you always
have an option to make a Ubuntu custom version of im-config again.
> You also deal with the GNOME on Wayland situation in your proposal, but
> in another way, and for some reason you don't call that a "workaround". ;)
I'd do that. ;) "auto" can be a set of workarounds for choosing the
default as its what "auto" does. But I don't think so for other
choices.
> > Just give users the freedom to choose one buggy choice to another
> > buggy one, if they think OK. Gunnar's change removed that choice
> > which im-config has given to users.
>
> Again: There was no choice before when using IBus with GNOME on Wayland,
> so no, I didn't remove any choice.
To be clear about that.. Yes, your code expanded im-config for
Wayland. But while doing it, the conditional code in the "ibus" choice
limited the choice in Wayland. That's usually called as a feature
removing while adapting. You thought that removing unavoidable but I
didn't think so and I objected.
> I noticed your long section about Wayland issues. Even if I'm not in a
> position to evaluate the importance of them, it sounds dissatisfying.
I listed open issues that users still encounter. Now you know there
are more than enough reasons why some users don't want the GNOME
Wayland default.
> The natural GNOME on Wayland workaround in the Linux world would be to
> manually put
>
> export GTK_IM_MODULE=ibus
>
> in some suitable config file.
No. We are not going back to the past of the config file hell. Package
maintainers touch this but the users who input text? They don't.
> But you want to be able to use the im-config UI for working around
> Wayland issues, and that way to handle the bugs would be at the expense
> of a UI which is hard to grasp and easy to misunderstand.
Using the GTK immodule is not a special thing and it's a feature
provided by GTK and IBus (though it's not what gnome-shell upstream
considers). It works and it works much faster and often better than
the GNOME Wayland default as I said. It's worth to be in a im-config
choice and wait, "ibus" already has it! It is quite obvious that the
"ibus" choice continues to do that also in Wayland.
> It would be
> designed for advanced users, who are well aware of the Wayland problems
> and the implications of "ibus" respective "none", but those are likely
> capable of setting GTK_IM_MODULE themselves.
You are talking about ignoring a large group of users including the
whole Korean language users.
Such users are not advanced that much. I've used and packaged IMs for
decades and I even wrote an IM before, but even I often get confused
when configuring an IM manually.
> So, Changwoo, I feel that I have nothing more to say without repeating
> myself, and I suspect that you feel the same. I think both of us have
> made some valid points to support respective position about MR !6, and
> it would be good if one or two less biased persons could take a stand.
Your MR !5 didn't have such discussion but got merged. :) But I'll
take time to get more opinions.
--
Changwoo Ryu
Reply to: