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

Bug#255025: xlibs: Windows keys stopped working as modifiers to some other keys



On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 02:27:20PM +0100, Bruce Stephens wrote:
[...]
> I've found an acceptable solution to this.  If I use the sawfish
> binding dialog, and say "Grab", and then press Windows-Left (or
> whatever), sawfish reports that as H-Left, and it works.  So for the
> moment everything's OK if I change sawfish's setting for its default
> modifer to Hyper rather than Super.
> 
> xmodmap shows:
> mod4        Super_L (0x7f),  Hyper_L (0x80)
> 
> So I suspect there's some confusion between the keys and modifiers in
> sawfish: perhaps when it reads the event of a Windows keypress, it
> reads mod4 and then turns that into Hyper (the first in alphabetical
> order) or something.

Absolutely, I gave more details in #263073.

> I'm not sure whether this is an actual bug in sawfish or not,
> however---I find it confusing, but possibly something else (something
> in GNOME, for example) is setting the modifiers oddly because of some
> old bit of configuration I have.

There is nothing wrong on your side, XKB enhances core X protocol
(for instance to provide multiple layouts) whereas some applications
refuse to deviate from this core protocol.  I did my best to provide
patches so that these applications can interact better with XKB
(without any trouble for other users), and am quite disappointed by
the lack of interest shown by maintainers.  Maybe users should
complain more loudly?

> Thanks very much for the links to documentation about the xkb
> configuration formats---this is an area that seems poorly documented
> (perhaps reasonably, since most of us shouldn't touch it other than to
> select options).  It might be worth adding the links to the FAQ?

These documents give useful advice for writing layouts, but users need
information on configuration.  After sarge, users should be able to
customize their XKB settings, these docs will then surely be more
helpful.

Denis




Reply to: