See the LP bug for two runs of the above tool. It appears that the difference between doing the change using setxkbmap and the GUI tool is:
@@ -18,7 +20,7 @@ xkb_types { include "complete" }; xkb_compat { include "complete" }; - xkb_symbols { include "pc+us+inet(evdev)+compose(ralt)" }; -+ xkb_symbols { include "pc+fr(oss)+inet(evdev)+compose(ralt)" }; ++ xkb_symbols { include "pc+fr(oss)+us:2+inet(evdev)" }; xkb_geometry { include "pc(pc105)" }; };
@@ -29,6 +31,6 @@ xkb_types "complete" { xkb_compatibility "complete" { -xkb_symbols "pc+us+inet(evdev)+compose(ralt)" { -+xkb_symbols "pc+fr(oss)+inet(evdev)+compose(ralt)" { ++xkb_symbols "pc+fr(oss)+us:2+inet(evdev)" { xkb_geometry "pc(pc105)" {
However, I'm not certain of the significance of these values.
See the LP bug for two runs of the above tool. It appears that the difference between doing the change using setxkbmap and the GUI tool is:
@@ -18,7 +20,7 @@ inet(evdev) +compose( ralt)" }; oss)+inet( evdev)+ compose( ralt)" }; oss)+us: 2+inet( evdev)" };
xkb_types { include "complete" };
xkb_compat { include "complete" };
- xkb_symbols { include "pc+us+
-+ xkb_symbols { include "pc+fr(
++ xkb_symbols { include "pc+fr(
xkb_geometry { include "pc(pc105)" };
};
@@ -29,6 +31,6 @@ inet(evdev) +compose( ralt)" { oss)+inet( evdev)+ compose( ralt)" { oss)+us: 2+inet( evdev)" {
xkb_types "complete" {
xkb_compatibility "complete" {
-xkb_symbols "pc+us+
-+xkb_symbols "pc+fr(
++xkb_symbols "pc+fr(
xkb_geometry "pc(pc105)" {
However, I'm not certain of the significance of these values.