Your message dated Tue, 25 Dec 2012 12:11:47 +0100 with message-id <20121225111147.GP5634@radis.cristau.org> and subject line Re: Bug#621706: It was a system bug after all has caused the Debian Bug report #621706, regarding il (Israel) variant si1452 mistakenly mapped to ie (Ireland) to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 621706: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=621706 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: setxkbmap: multiple layouts, default variant for first, non-default for other, breaks
- From: Shai Berger <shai@platonix.com>
- Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 03:30:34 +0300
- Message-id: <20110408003034.27502.17861.reportbug@deblack.local>
Package: x11-xkb-utils Version: 7.6+2 Severity: normal Tags: l10n Hi, I use a double layout: us with default variant, and il with a non-default variant (one I have added myself, but I think that's beside the point). I used to have settings that ran > setxkbmap -model pc105 -layout us,il -variant ,si1452 Today, after an upgrade, this command produced weird results: switching to the il layout seemed to work (in terms of the keyboard indicator), but the keyboard produced Latin letters instead of Hebrew. Upon investigation via xkbprint, I found that the layout I was using with this command was actually pc+us+il(si1452):2+ie(basic):2+... It was that ie(basic), which I didn't ask for, which was messing up my keyboard. I was able to fix it by changing the order of keyboards: setxkbmap -model pc105 -layout il,us -variant si1452, With this, the layout as reported by xkbprint became pc+il(si1452)+us:2+... And all is well. So my bet is that the problem is with the combination of default first variant with non-default second. This bug surfaced after today's update which included x11-xserver-utils, xkb-data, and several libx11-* packages, so it may not actually be in setxkbmap, but that's where I see the problems. HTH, Shai. -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.38-2-686 (SMP w/4 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Versions of packages x11-xkb-utils depends on: ii libc6 2.11.2-11 Embedded GNU C Library: Shared lib ii libx11-6 2:1.4.3-1 X11 client-side library ii libxaw7 2:1.0.9-2 X11 Athena Widget library ii libxkbfile1 1:1.0.7-1 X11 keyboard file manipulation lib ii libxt6 1:1.1.1-1 X11 toolkit intrinsics library x11-xkb-utils recommends no packages. x11-xkb-utils suggests no packages. -- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Shai Berger <shai@platonix.com>, 621706-done@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#621706: It was a system bug after all
- From: Julien Cristau <jcristau@debian.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 12:11:47 +0100
- Message-id: <20121225111147.GP5634@radis.cristau.org>
- In-reply-to: <201104122000.30935.shai@platonix.com>
- References: <201104122000.30935.shai@platonix.com>
Version: 2.3-1 On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 20:00:30 +0300, Shai Berger wrote: > reopen 621706 > reassign 621706 xkb-data > retitle 621706 il (Israel) variant si1452 mistakenly mapped to ie (Ireland) > thanks > > Hi, > > I played with it more, and found the real problem: xkb-data includes the file > /usr/share/X11/xkb/rules/base, which maps il(si1452) to ie(basic) in several > locations and variations. This is caused by what seems to be a typo in the > package source: The file rules/compat/variantsMapping.lst, line 16, says: > > il si1452 ie basic > > This is completely wrong. Mapping to "il basic" may have been correct a long > time ago, but it isn't correct anymore; the line should simply be removed. > This was done upstream in 2.3. Belatedly closing this report. Cheers, JulienAttachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---