[Pkg-fonts-devel] POssible MBF for packages depending on ttf-liberation (was: Please check reverse dependencies before moving files around)
bubulle at debian.org
Mon Oct 31 04:20:03 UTC 2011
Quoting Paul Wise (pabs at debian.org):
> Hi all,
> I just had to do an upload of mokomaze because it hardcodes the path to
> the Liberation Mono font and the location of that changed between
> ttf-liberation and fonts-liberation. Please check reverse dependencies
> before moving files around, file bugs asking to switch to the new
> package and font name and add compatibility symlinks to the dummy
> package name so that programs depending on it still work.
OK, so I added these compatibility symlinksin SVN. Please check if
that was the Right Way to do things, that will be appreciated.
So, we might then need to do a MBF for packages reverse depending on
- to depends on fonts-liberation instead
- to check whether they are using hardcoded paths for fonts
Here is the list of those rdepends:
(what are the pipe signs meaning? Any any how to get such list with
only the names of packages and not their description?)
I propose the following text for the MBF announcement in d-d:
The font packaging team is in the process of renaming many font
packages maintained by the team from ttf-<foo> (or similar names) to
fonts-<foo>. This is part of the "yet to be published" Font Packaging
Policy we're currently polishing. This will bring font packages naming
inline with the naming used in other distros (Fedora for instance uses
[foundryname-]projectname[-fontfamilyname]-fonts. We chose to prefix
the packages names with fonts- instead as it makes packages listing
easier to understand).
During this process all Debian font packages provide transition
packages to allow this name transition to be handled smoothly.
We also use this opportunity to move TrueType or OpenType font files
in a place where the "ttf-" or "otf-" prefixes aren't used.
For instance, fonts-liberation now provides Liberation fonts in
/usr/share/fonts/truetype/liberation instead of /usr/share/fonts/truetype/ttf-liberation.
However, we recently discovered (with ttf-liberation/fonts-liberation)
that some packages depend on a font package because they use
*hardcoded* paths to access fonts. This is particularly true with
Liberation fonts. This has been solved by providing compatibility
links in the transition package but we would like to go one step
further and then do a mass bug filing for such packages:
- change their dependencies for fonts-liberation instead of
- change the hardcoded paths to either other hardcoded paths or use
fontconfig to find fonts without hardcoding paths
As a consequence, I plan sending an MBF against packages that reverse
depend on ttf-liberation, with the following text:
Hello dear maintainer,
Your package currently depends on the ttf-liberation package.
This package has been renamed to fonts-liberation as part of an effort
for consistent naming of font packages. A transition ttf-liberation
package is provided for smooth upgrades.
We would however like you to change the dependency of your package to
fonts-liberation so that we can in the future drop the transition
IMPORTANT: please note that the fonts location also changed from
/usr/share/fonts/truetype/liberation. If your package hardcodes font
paths, you may need to update it to use the new paths (the transition
package is currently providing compatibility symlinks).
Many thanks in advance for you help in this transition.
This action will take place for all font packages that have reverse
dependencies. fonts-liberation is currentlyused as an example for
<list of packages>
<dd_list of packages>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel