| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pazu
Newbie
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Posts: 3
Location: Salvador, BA, Brazil
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2003 10:32 pm Post subject: Problems to type a C cedilla |
 |
|
Hello there, folks!
It seems Im unable to proper type a C cedilla on recent gnome builds. When I type <dead_acute> <c>, a c with an accute appears, instead of a c with a cedilla, which is what used to be.
Am I the only one having problems to input a ccedilla in recent gnome builds (up to 2.2.0 RC1 at least, havent downloaded 2.2.0 final yet)? At first I thought that could be an X problem, but everything works fine when I fire up my standard RH8 gnome instalation. (Ive installed 2.2.0 RC1 on a separete directory tree).
I think this must be related to the way GTK handles dead keys; things are working fine on older (GTK1) applications Ive even checked my X11 Compose file to make sure <dead_acute> <c> is mapped to ccedilla, but I still cant type a ccedilla.
Any hints? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pazu
Newbie
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Posts: 3
Location: Salvador, BA, Brazil
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 06, 2003 10:52 pm Post subject: Solution |
|
|
After some searching on the gnome bugzilla database I found an answer to my problem. Sorry for bothering. Anyway, if anyone else is having the same problem, here is the answer
| Quote: |
Appears to be a recent addition to the XFree86 compose tables ...
wasn't there when I generated the GTK=-2.0 internal compose
tables.
If you want to use the XFree86 compose tables, you
can do this by an environemnt variables:
export GTK_IM_MODULE="xim"
(You can also select it through the right-click menu, but
you'd have to do it every time.)
|
This is a comment in bug #83492. Exporting GTK_IM_MODULE indeed solved my problem. However, the next comment made me ponder:
| Quote: |
ed Jun 12 14:18:45 2002 Owen Taylor <otaylor@redhat.com>
* gtk/gtkimcontextsimple.c: Add compose sequences
of dead_acute + c/C => C WITH CEDDILLA.
(Nano Golveia, #83492)
|
This is from last July, and I was running GTK+-2.2.0, yet the problem was there. Perhaps the bug persists? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
