On 2022-03-28 08:28, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 11:37 AM Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> wrote:Hi, These bugs seem somewhat similar: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=990316 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1008481AFAICT, GLFW_IM_MODULE is different from SDL_IM_MODULE. I can't find GLFW_IM_MODULE in glfw code, it only appears in kitty's glfw fork. But SDL_IM_MODULE can be found in sdl2 code. Ref: https://github.com/libsdl-org/SDL/blob/120c76c8/src/core/linux/SDL_ime.c#L46-L49
Like Osamu I first thought: "This is similar to bug #990316". But I no longer think that's the case. As regards Kitty, upstream intentionally disables the IM support by default. This seems to be something else, and AFAICT adding that variable would not contradict to anyone's intention.
But with that said, I don't think it makes sense to spam the users' environment with duplicate variables. Upstream already makes use of the well established XMODIFIERS variable, and by parsing its value they would know whether fcitx(5) is used or not. So we may want to propose that to upstream rather than adding a new application specific variable.
-- Cheers, Gunnar