[Pkg-fonts-devel] RFS: ttf-sil-andika

[Holger Levsen]

Hi,

On Monday 23 June 2008 10:50, Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
> It's the Andika font family, and this particular version is Andika Basic
> which replaces the previous Andika Design Reviews.
>
> It's more like a release tag within the wider Andika project.
>
> I initially did an ITP for ttf-sil-andika-basic (and the corresponding
> packaging work in svn) but since this newer version replaces the design
> reviews I thought it would be better to provide an upgrade path and keep
> the same name as the existing package to keep it from going through NEW.
>
> Does that sound good to you?

At this point in time (=close to the lenny freeze), certainly. Though I have 
to remark, that going through NEW is really not a blocker anymore, especially 
for packages which just introduce new binary packages or due to package 
renames. Even at this point in time.

The ttf-sil-andika-basic package could provide ttf-sil-andika, so that there 
is an upgrade path. But I'd really suggest to do this, if at all, past the 
lenny release.

> yes, the upstream orig tarball is constructed from the zip and isn't
> published on the upstream page at this point.

Ack.

> > Reading the README.Debian I understand that "basic" is really part of the
> > fonts name, not the version... but maybe thats the way SIL works,
> > "DesRev" in the README was also part of the name while in the Debian
> > package it was part of the version..
> This is the way it has been handled for this particular design review
> process. It's understood as a some kind of release tag within the wider
> project.

Ok. 

> > In debian/copyright you write that the debian packaging is copyright 2008
> > by you. The old file said 2007, so it should be "2007-2008" :)
> Yes, good point. Thanks for spotting that.

:)

> > There are no linebreaks in README.TXT anymore :) (Upstream change, I
> > suggest to leave it like it is, I just have the habbit to comment on
> > everything I see :)
> Yes, it's a minor thing. I agree that we can probably leave it like that.

Ok.

> > So, really no blocker to not upload :) I expect you want the version like
> > it is...(?) should I fix the year in debian/copyright for you
> > while/before building the package before uploading?
> Yes, please, I'll reflect the date fix in svn.

Ok.

One other thing: the font name within the package has actually changed, isnt 
that a problem for all the packages using the font directly? 

A quick look with "apt-cache rdepends ttf-sil-andika" only revealed tuxmath 
and tuxtype (both maintained by me, so I can+will handle that :) - 
but "apt-cache rdepends" does have its problems.. so maybe it would be good 
to announce this change somewhere?

Will take a break to eat now and then upload the package as it is :)


regards,
	Holger
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20080623/f42fc51d/attachment.pgp