[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Trying to fix IBus
From: |
Ricardo Wurmus |
Subject: |
Re: Trying to fix IBus |
Date: |
Thu, 11 Aug 2016 12:14:13 +0200 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 0.9.16; emacs 25.1.1 |
Chris Marusich <address@hidden> writes:
> Ricardo Wurmus <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> NixOS encountered the same problem:
>>
>> https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/14568
>>
>> I don’t like their solution to set a variable NIX_PROFILES and let GTK
>> look for immodule files in each of the directories.
>
> Why don't you like their solution? Why do you believe that your
> proposed solution is better than their solution? We should make sure to
> choose the best solution available, and right now I'm not sure which one
> is better.
I find it very inelegant to ask users to specify a list of directories
containing profiles. A mechanism like that also seems like a hack to
me, and I’m afraid that we would begin to rely more and more on this to
“solve” other problems.
Splitting a variable that GTK is already using anyway into two different
versions just seems a lot cleaner to me. The variable won’t even need
to be exposed to most users; we could set it automatically when
generating profiles.
Eventually this will disappear once the GTK devs retire support for
separate input method modules (I guess this would make IBus a hard
dependency on GNU systems). At that point we can easily drop our
patches and the profile hook; a generic GUIX_PROFILES variable, on the
other hand, would be more difficult to deprecate if it becomes more
popular (as it has a much broader scope).
>> Instead, I think we should patch both GTK versions to respect
>> GUIX_GTK2_IM_MODULE_FILE and GUIX_GTK3_IM_MODULE_FILE, and generate
>> the immodule cache files in a profile hook.
>>
>> We did something similar before with GUIX_GTK2_PATH and GUIX_GTK3_PATH.
>
> I believe you are referring to this thread:
>
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2015-12/msg00046.html
>
> Did that patch actually get committed? If so, why didn't it solve the
> problem? I've read all the relevant discussions I could find [1], and
> it isn't clear to me why we need to do what you're suggesting ("patch
> both GTK versions to respect GUIX_GTK2_IM_MODULE_FILE and
> GUIX_GTK3_IM_MODULE_FILE, and generate the immodule cache files in a
> profile hook") if we've already committed the patch presented in the
> thread above.
Yes, that patch got committed and it actually solved a problem. It is a
different problem, though. GTK really assumes modules to be in one
place, which means that with immutable directories we have no other way
to make things work.
~~ Ricardo