Bug#1008481: Add SDL_IM_MODULE to fcitx4 and fcitx5
On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 3:13 PM Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Let me assess situation more verbosely.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Shengjing Zhu <zhsj@debian.org>
> > To: Gunnar Hjalmarsson <gunnarhj@debian.org>
> > Cc: 1008481@bugs.debian.org, Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org>
> > Subject: Re: Bug#1008481: Add SDL_IM_MODULE to fcitx4 and fcitx5
> > Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 03:27:36 +0800
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 3:05 AM Gunnar Hjalmarsson <gunnarhj@debian.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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:
>
> Yes, I understand these are not the same problem.
>
> With your explanation, I think I am clear about issues.
>
> > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=990316
> > > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1008481
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > AFAICT, 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.
>
> The upstream of glfw doesn't support GLFW_IM_MODULE.
>
> The vendored copy of glfw in the popular kitty supports GLFW_IM_MODULE and kitty
> upstream still advises not to enable this input method support as the default
> setting.
>
> So we decided not to enable it from im-config
>
> Since fcitx5 uses the same protocol as ibus, documented proposed workaround was to
> set GLFW_IM_MODULE=ibus for both ibus case and fcitx5 case. fcitx4 isn't supported
> and no proposed setting.
>
> > > > 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
>
> The upstream of sdl in Debian has been supporting fcitx via SDL_IM_MODULE for some
> time.
>
> No popular programs in Debian used modern sdl2 so the support of fcitx via
> SDL_IM_MODULE was never raised nor addressed in im-config. It should have been and
> is a valid feature addition case for im-config.
>
> > ...
> > 2. Changing sdl2 upstream takes too long to propagate. SDL_IM_MODULE
> > appeared in sdl2 since 2016
> > https://github.com/libsdl-org/SDL/commit/808c75d1
> > User asks for this for Dota2 game, which seems hard to get sdl2 updated...
>
> The vendored copy of sdl2 in the popular non-Debian DOTA finally got updated and now
> support of fcitx (fcitx4?) via SDL_IM_MODULE is a desirable feature. So there is
> significant desire to set up fcitx for sdl2 from the user.
>
> We know from glfw discussion, fcitx4 and fcitx5 uses different protocol.
> (fcitx5==ibus)
>
> My question is what is the correct value for SDL_IM_MODULE which works with Debian's
> sdl2 and DOTA's sdl2?.
>
> ibus --> no setting for SDL_IM_MODULE
> fcitx (fcitx4) --> SDL_IM_MODULE=fcitx
> fcitx5 --> SDL_IM_MODULE=fcitx5 or SDL_IM_MODULE=ibus
>
Just to answer the protocol part.
IMO, there are at least 4 protocols that fcitx5 supports.
+ fcitx5, at dbus org.fcitx.Fcitx-0
+ fcitx4, at dbus org.fcitx.Fcitx5
+ dbus, at dbus address org.freedesktop.portal.Fcitx
+ ibus, at dbus address org.freedesktop.portal.IBus
Both fcitx4 and fcitx5 have a dbus frontend, and they listen on the
same address.
sdl2 implements fcitx support with dbus frontend. So both fcitx4 and
fcitx5 support it.
For kitty, it only supports ibus, but it can also connect to fcitx5's
ibus frontend.
For sdl2, it supports ibus, so it can connect to fcitx5's ibus
frontend as well, but since there's native fcitx support, using fcitx
dbus frontend is preferred.
In conclusion,
For SDL_IM_MODULE
+ fcitx(fcitx4) --> SDL_IM_MODULE=fcitx
+ fcitx5 --> SDL_IM_MODULE=fcitx
+ ibus --> no setting
+ others --> no settings
--
Shengjing Zhu
Reply to: