Re: [PATCH] services: 'console-keymap-service' takes multiple files.

[Albin <albin@fripost.org>]

Den 2016-04-16 kl. 10:24, skrev Alex Kost:
> Albin (2016-04-16 05:47 +0300) wrote:
> 
>> Den 2016-04-15 kl. 23:17, skrev Ludovic Courtès:
>>> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:
> [...]
>>>> @deffn {Scheme Procedure} console-keymap-service @var{files} ...
>>>> @cindex keyboard layout
>>>> Return a service to load console keymaps from @var{files} using
>>>> @command{loadkeys} command.  Most likely, you want to load some default
>>>> keymap, which can be done like this:
>>>>
>>>> @example
>>>> (console-keymap-service "dvorak")
>>>> @end example
>>>>
>>>> Or, for example, for Swedish keyboards, you may need to combine keymaps:
>>>> @example
>>>> (console-keymap-service "se-ir209" "se-fi-ir209")
>>>
>>> Ideally with a few words to explain why this is useful on Swedish
>>> keyboards (Albin? :-)), but otherwise LGTM!
>>
>> I don't think it's necessary to explain exactly why it's useful here
>> because it's a simple fact that loading just the first "se-ir209"
>> doesn't enable a Swedish but some kind of US-Danish freak keymap :-),
>> which the user will soon discover.  If it doesn't cross your mind that
>> *two* keymaps may be necessary for using *one* keyboard (how obvious is
>> that, really?), then you might start to think that perhaps the Guix
>> folks simply forgot to include the one that you need.  IMHO upstream
>> should ditch the whole dual keymap thing if it's technically feasible to
>> do so.
> 
> It is definitely feasible.  I think it is done so because it is simple:
> instead of making a single map file for a Swedish keyboard, they just
> made a small "extension" to a general Scandinavian layout (If I
> understand it correctly).
> 
>> The formulation above looks good to me also, except I think it's clearer
>> with the formulation "a Swedish keyboard" in this context.
> 
> Fixed, thanks!
> 
> I think I'll change the example from "ir209" to "lat6", as "se-lat6.map"
> has the following line in the commentary:
> 
>   # Covers ISO 8859-10, 1993
> 
> Since it is the Standard¹, I think it is better to use it in the
> example.  WDYT?
> 
> ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_8859-10
> 

Yes, I think you're right!  Thanks for fixing this Alex.

Albin