From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chris Marusich Subject: Re: Trying to fix IBus Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 01:41:37 -0700 Message-ID: <871t1vhf3y.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87lh04covy.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44568) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXlYh-0004WF-3W for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 04:41:48 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXlYe-0007ry-Gj for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 04:41:46 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-x241.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::241]:33050) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bXlYe-0007ro-6J for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 04:41:44 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-x241.google.com with SMTP id vy10so4372548pac.0 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 01:41:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87lh04covy.fsf@elephly.net> (Ricardo Wurmus's message of "Wed, 10 Aug 2016 23:09:21 +0200") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: guix-devel --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ricardo Wurmus writes: > NixOS encountered the same problem: > > https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/14568 > > I don=E2=80=99t like their solution to set a variable NIX_PROFILES and le= t 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. > 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. > What do you think? Is this acceptable/reasonable? Because upstream has made it clear that they won't accept a patch like this, I think it'd be great to patch it ourselves and fix it. I think it would be nice to have a solution that is similar to what NixOS does, but if your patch is really better than NixOS' solution, I would love to see it committed. Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Alex Griffin writes: > >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016, at 04:09 PM, Ricardo Wurmus wrote: >>> What do you think? Is this acceptable/reasonable? >> >> It seems to me like it's probably fine, for whatever that's worth, and >> also cleaner than the NIX_PROFILES solution. How will this work on >> foreign distros, though? > > On foreign distros you would have to use IBus from Guix with GTK from > Guix. This means that installing IBus from Guix and expecting it to > work with the foreign distro=E2=80=99s applications won=E2=80=99t work. = Likewise you > cannot use the distro=E2=80=99s IBus and use it in applications installed= via > Guix. > > That=E2=80=99s a general problem =E2=80=94 we already experience this wit= h R or Python > (mixing modules installed via different means causes crashes). As unpleasant as that would be, it would still be better than the current situation, in which IBus doesn't work for all installed applications due to the GTK+ major version incompatibility. Footnotes:=20 [1] All the threads here: * GuixSD discussion: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2015-09/msg00306.html * GuixSD solution (?): https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2015-12/msg00046.html * More GuixSD discussion (I wasn't aware of the other threads at the time):https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/help-guix/2016-04/msg00006.html * NixOS solution: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/14568 * NixOS discussion: https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/14417 * Upstream response to NixOS patch: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D764551 =2D-=20 Chris --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXrDpDAAoJEN1AmhXYIkadNkUQALjtFyzJjEARQh7D847tP+sv y3iq22vk/pvKM+hqsHVWQxiSp8QIYyvRS+jWWXEHTR/Veti5xH9JkbVoadlTdE0i 1GXc2F4TkI+nHG12CVk3SGzqJAzqEECmXqP4CVFVm9lpK4YzNzK3VnNo5dHrS4DK OQ/FJCJ7hVnEwB7vwr0nbz0Mdzk1TDqxAm/J88MynaMEk/AHaSYIMkpEPiT/PHyd K3ZqtNZ30untBxTq77gOysSCWZqLk9XC90IC7vy/qJeaO2rTXFrYyma4pR+9OpHA 0V8Bt1lx8mHbB/iKunT4FaAUxbvCA74WPiH/cYIO6IJAR0Qj5LAFA6vt0C6zWgy6 khYQ1686mTkStpQTqmzHgs9SbG6aZNy4lewikQf+A398v+A6T1uTVE/L4QDChJs3 J3Sq1/jUCHrfRUQR2OdTJaUmHkgC0n2UIZ+PIubSMPcITTg6s/Ay2c64YShF9BXB 8sykOdKK2eYvO27nUnRm6UXQYo1lYitBGmREJ29ptUH42JHKT/nP/mkNHH25cYuz OPjz7oVmJDXKbhWxs+ko4XJ9dVUkBKoaiiUPfBN6KuHqEZaqVXaAyRrkXvLgXlKD L1ZaRt8GYxfuvMoPArh9QkgC/G3jlT1HWGeUn60+bv2r4/SMqlDl1mmC7fdokfHU dsYQuuXYCax7Y03n4wG6 =BNfJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--