> > Since fcitx5 is meant to be the successor for fcitx4 which is no > > longer developed, it may make sense to replace fcitx4 with 5 instead > > of keeping both in the port tree? I'm not using either, so I'm > > probably missing something here. > > I agree, if Kevin is ok with that we can drop fcitx4 once fcitx5 and its > plugins are tested and imported.
Wouldn't it make more sense to update the existing fcitx ports rather than add new "fcitx5" ones?
