[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#983695: ibus-anthy: does not work out of the box on the GNOME desktop



On 2021-03-05 16:18, Osamu Aoki wrote:
On Thu, 2021-03-04 at 11:43 +0100, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
GNOME favors IBus. That's hard to change.

im-config also favors IBus. How about letting im-config fall back
to IBus instead?

I was a bit lost what exactly was discussed.  As I re-read this bug
report from Yoshino-san, its objective is automate ibus setting
specific inputmethod (be it anthy or mozc).  I don't have time to
check its goodness, but its intent is step in right direction.   I
don't understand why we need to worry about fcitx or uim here.

While the direct purpose of this bug report is a proposal to add an auto setup script to ibus-anthy, the background is that gnome-shell has started to recommend ibus which makes it hard to set up a non-ibus IM at installation via tasksel meta packages.

[ @Osamu: I reviewed the MR:

https://salsa.debian.org/input-method-team/ibus-anthy/-/merge_requests/2

and noticed an issue. It would be good if you could take a look. ]

More specifically: rename 21_ibus.{conf,rc} to e.g.
49_ibus.{conf,rc}

??? This puts ibus in lower priority.  Why?  I don't understand the
exact motivation.

<snip>

If the issue is package dependency of GNOME pulling in ibus package
which causes trouble,

Yes, that's it.

cleaner solution may be intruducing dummy
ibus- fake package which provide ibus for dependency.  fcitx and uim
may be made to depends on this ibus-fake package.  Something like
this seems simpler fix.

That might also address the problem. Not sure about cleaner/simpler, though. :)

Also, would adding a new binary, even if only a dummy, be allowed during soft freeze?

That would still make im-config let GNOME configure IBus for most
GNOME users. But if uim is present, im-config would configure uim,
and if Fcitx is present, im-config would configure Fcitx. Even if
IBus is installed.

Such a change would be based on the idea that if a non-IBus
framework is present, the user is assumed to prefer it over IBus.
(The choice of framework can still be changed by the user.)

What do you think?

I think that such a tiny change would compensate - from an IM POV
- for the fact that gnome-shell started to recommend ibus.

Let me add that I'm not sure about my idea. Earlier on this bug report I wrote:

GNOME relies on IBus, and IBus is the only IM framework supported
by GNOME. So when you use a non-IBus framework you do it at your
own risk. For that reason I think it makes sense that the user needs
to actively select a framework to be able to use a non-IBus
framework on a GNOME desktop.

It would be possible to change im-config so IM_CONFIG_PREFERRED_RULE
is effective also with GNOME. But by doing so, Debian would make a
choice behind the scenes resulting in a combination which is known
to be fragile and break certain aspects of the desktop.

So you can rightly say that I contradict myself. :/ Maybe it's not a good idea to keep using tasksel to install non-IM input methods on the GNOME desktop.

--
Rgds,

Gunnar Hjalmarsson
https://launchpad.net/~gunnarhj

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: