[Pkg-ime-devel] [ibus] about ibus input engine packaging.

[Ma Xiaojun]

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Daiki Ueno <ueno at unixuser.org> wrote:
> Well, I don't oppose to use <setup> at all, as for the first two you
> mentioned, but I'm opposing to use it for the unnecessary situation
> (e.g. band-aid for Debian's libexec problem).
>
> From this point of view, you have only succeeded to convince the
> sunpinyin and ibus-cangjie upstreams.  What about ibus-chewing,
> ibus-hangul, ibus-skk, ibus-unikey, etc?  For ibus-skk, I don't like to
> merge such a change, which will be unnecessary in the future, once...

Do you need some aid on English reading or primary school math? How
can you read "3+1" as "2"?

ibus-chewing doesn't seem to have a separable setup program.
https://github.com/definite/ibus-chewing/issues/29

I'm sorry if I forgot to inform some engines when I care more about
IBus some time ago. For engines prefer a smaller audience of user even
if they know the story behind <setup>, I don't care. It's like
sometimes you cannot ask a H264-only website to support Firefox.

> ...this has been done.  By the way,

Show me how ibus-setup in git repo launch a
ibus-setup-<engine>.desktop . Show me the code please; I don't see any
new commits after this discussion.

> You are missing the point.  I was saying that <setup> change will cause
> bunch of Debian local patches in engine packages until it will be merged
> in the upstreams (and it might be unlikely).  There are a few other
> approaches which could avoid the problem (for example, Ying-Chun's
> symlink idea, and my desktop idea).

There is actually no need to local patch. Things have been broken for
that long time, anyone except me gave a shit? Show me full links if
any. I'd proudly say I let Ying-Chun what exactly is the issue.

You are more than welcome to implement your fancy desktop idea; I
won't stop you.

> Why do you think your idea is always best?

I have _zero_ interest to convince you. I've just been annoyed again
by the way some people do things.