[i18n] Input Method and Fonts improvements for Gutsy

[Arne Goetje]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ming Hua wrote:
> While I agree scim-uim is not actively maintained by upstream, I would
> say I take care of the packaging resaonably well, and I believe it's in
> good shape right now.  There are also upstream authors willing to fix
> bugs if we report them.

[...]

> As you see, neither of these two bugs are really scim-uim upstream's
> fault, and both have been fixed for quite some time. Are you talking
> about something different from these two?  I haven't heard any of such
> crash issues lately, and I follow Debian BTS, Launchpad, as well as
> upstream mailing list.

ok, sorry for that, I should have checked with you first on this issue.
Please accept my apologies.
I just checked again, and indeed the crash issue has been fixed.

>>> Likewise for scim-chinese.  We don't seem to be using it, so if it isn't
>>> needed, it should probably be removed to reduce confusion.
>> scim-chinese is the old version of scim-pinyin. The package got renamed
>> with the SCIM API change between 1.2.x and 1.4.0.
> 
> This is correct.
> 
>> scim-chinese does not
>> work with the current scim version and actually conflicts with it.
>> Therefor it should be removed.
> 
> If we are talking about the scim-chinese Debian/Ubuntu package, this is
> simply not true.  Since scim-chinese got renamed to scim-pinyin by
> upstream, Debian has been building a scim-chinese dummy binary package
> which depends on scim-pinyin.
> 
> Debian's scim only conflicts with "scim-chinese (<< 0.5.0)" (and that's
> only because I didn't know better about shared library packaging at the
> beginning), and scim-pinyin replaces "scim-chinese (<< 0.5.0)".  So
> scim-chinese package should have never caused any problem, and Debian
> users have a smooth and automatic upgrade path from scim-chinese to
> scim-pinyin (sarge to etch).
> 
> Ubuntu's scim-pinyin source package is significantly different from
> Debian's, but a cursory check makes me believe that Ubuntu user should
> also have an upgrade path from breezy to dapper.
> 
> So unless people have multiple releases in their sources.list and have
> rather unconventional pinning, or use unofficial packages, scim-chinese
> shouldn't break any dependency handling.  Do you have a more concrete
> example?
> 
> Of course, considering that dapper already had the new renamed
> scim-pinyin package, it's okay to drop scim-chinese packages if Ubuntu
> wants to, and doesn't care about differentiate from Debian.  But it's
> for cleaning cruft, not because it's breaking things.

Ok, in that case keeping it as dummy package is fine.
No further comments, sorry for the fuss.

Cheers
Arne
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGvUr2bp/QbmhdHowRAqy0AJ9wIVTwkZ1er6ZP/kyfFre0wP+LnACgzmEw
IPxw9GWBoFrSHhEWYrfJfu4=
=E2Y3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----