Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines
Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.
REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
FS#80310 - [fcitx] Should prefer fcitx5
Attached to Project:
Arch Linux
Opened by oldherl (oldherl) - Tuesday, 21 November 2023, 05:55 GMT
Last edited by Toolybird (Toolybird) - Thursday, 23 November 2023, 06:23 GMT
Opened by oldherl (oldherl) - Tuesday, 21 November 2023, 05:55 GMT
Last edited by Toolybird (Toolybird) - Thursday, 23 November 2023, 06:23 GMT
|
DetailsDescription:
From https://github.com/fcitx/fcitx , "Fcitx 4 is under maintainence Mode now, so no new issue and PR should be created." Fcitx5 has been around for several years. Meanwhile this arch package fcitx still points to fcitx4, and fcitx5 is packaged as fcitx5. According to Arch's convention, the non-versioned package "fcitx" should be fcitx5, and the obsolete fcitx4 should use fcitx4 as the package name, or to be dropped. |
This task depends upon
Closed by Toolybird (Toolybird)
Thursday, 23 November 2023, 06:23 GMT
Reason for closing: Won't implement
Additional comments about closing: Refer PM's comments. Additionally, we are not ready to drop fcitx4 just yet.
Thursday, 23 November 2023, 06:23 GMT
Reason for closing: Won't implement
Additional comments about closing: Refer PM's comments. Additionally, we are not ready to drop fcitx4 just yet.
This is clearly noted in the Wiki [1] with a big red warning. Folks who don't bother to read the Wiki get wha....well, you know what I mean.
I imagine it would be quite a difficult task for Arch to transition/rename and default to fcitx5 as suggested (judging by the number of pkgs with fcitx in their name).
[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Fcitx
I understand that it might be too much a hassle / confusion to rename fcitx5 to fcitx, but at least we could drop fcitx (4) or rename it to fcitx4?