On 07/21/15 15:07, Thiago Macieira-san wrote: > On Tuesday 21 July 2015 14:36:19 Takao Fujiwara wrote: >>> * We need at least one input context to use and test against (on Linux) >>> when developing Qt further. Not having the plugin in qtbase will lead to >>> us not testing IMEs on Linux anymore, something I really want to avoid. >> >> I think you don't have to require IBus but other IMFs likes qt4. >> gtk also does not include the IBus modules in itself. > > We don't develop gtk. We do develop Qt4 and we know that supporting complex > input methods with it was a pain and it often regressed due to lack of > testing. I think limiting the testing is doing a disservice to our users.
However I guess you won't complete IBus testings since there are various functionalities by languages. >>> * As Sune said, the platform plugin headers are not stable, so having it >>> in tree will give you a better chance of keeping things in sync with Qt >>> releases >> Some changes are not already acceptable even though the headers are not >> stable. I think we could track the changes with bug trackers. > > That's a worse situation than keeping developing at the same pace. Hmm..., This situation is conflict from IBus side... >>> * The IMEs for pretty much all non Linux platforms reside in qtbase. Why >>> should we handle Linux differently (except for the fact that there's >>> still a multitude of IMEs on Linux :/ ) >> >> But the current IBus module is not useful for users. > > Can you explain this a bit more? What are the issues? https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-40541 Hangul users cannot commit the spaces with the right order. https://codereview.qt-project.org/115603 The patch was submitted for qt 5.3 and rebase to head, 5.4, head, 5.5, head for about one year. Now IBus requires asynchronously key event processes and I think it should be upstreamed asap. Fujiwara _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
