Arch Linux User Repository

If you're getting compilation errors (especially complaints about missing GCC headers) please delete your Bazel cache (~/.cache/bazel by default).

Echoing @CryogEnix

ibus-mozc and fcitx5-mozc-ut were not previously incompatible.

The only notable incompatibility is there are a few mozc files being shared among fcitx5-mozc-ut, ibus-mozc, and mozc-ut:

fcitx5-mozc-ut

/usr/lib/mozc/mozc_server
/usr/lib/mozc/mozc_tool

ibus-mozc

/usr/lib/mozc/mozc_renderer

mozc-ut

/usr/lib/mozc/mozc_server
/usr/lib/mozc/mozc_tool

Why not provide those files thru mozc-ut as a dependency?

I have a question: Ibus-mozc and Fcitx5-mozc do not have any particular incompatibilities with apps, correct?

In any case, I still use Fcitx5-mozc-ut for the UT dictionaries alone.

I have been using these packages since long, and I am surprised to see all the drama. Which packages have been removed, and where is the explanation for the removal.

@Muflone you might want to check https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Mozc for why UT dictionaries are worth it, to quote:

Tip: Use of the UT dictionary is optional but highly recommended.

@Nocifer Thanks a lot for your work on this, greatly appreciated!

So is this package adding some extra features with those patches? What features exactly? Additional dictionaries?

your previous comment refered only to be able to be installed alongside with IBus, not extra features

Unfortunately, they failed to realize that the critical function (at least for some people) served by the way the package was engineered up until now, was that it was possible to install the Fcitx5 version of Mozc alongside the IBus and/or the Emacs version.

It's not a duplicate though, it's a patched version providing extra functionality not present in the official package.

Have you even read that rule you're quoting? Here's the rest of it:

Exception to this strict rule may only be packages having extra features enabled and/or patches in comparison to the official ones. In such an occasion the pkgname should be different to express that difference.

Perhaps you're new here? Do you even know what the UT dictionary is? Packages like this one have existed on the AUR for many years now, and it's never been a problem, precisely because they're patched versions.

Please refrain from arbitrarily deleting packages that do not break the rules. And for that matter, perhaps you should go read those rules again.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/AUR_submission_guidelines

The submitted PKGBUILDs must not build applications already in any of the official binary repositories under any circumstances.

The powers that be have decided to delete the previous incarnation of this package because they deemed it as a duplicate of the fcitx5-mozc package in the extra repo.

Unfortunately, they failed to realize that the critical function (at least for some people) served by the way the package was engineered up until now, was that it was possible to install the Fcitx5 version of Mozc alongside the IBus and/or the Emacs version. By making the package monolithic it is now impossible to do that, and the user must choose a single version to use. My condolences to the people out there who may need to use shared PCs with a different DE for each user (admittedly they're much fewer nowadays, but still, they do exist).

Barring that minor detail, the package otherwise works as it's always worked, with the difference that it now includes all the required files and does not depend on a separate mozc/mozc-ut package.

So, that's enough drama (and nobody should be interested in it anyway besides myself). If there's anyone who wants to continue using this package, as opposed to the (at long last updated after a 3-year hiatus) official fcitx5-mozc or some other variation in the AUR, and is in need of help with migrating, feel free to ask.

Cheers.