[Pkg-fonts-devel] open-font-design-toolkit is marked for autoremoval from testing

Jonas Smedegaard dr at jones.dk
Wed Nov 5 19:36:42 UTC 2014

Hi Daniel,

Quoting Daniel Glassey (2014-11-05 18:57:33)
> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 02:25:32PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Quoting Nicolas Spalinger (2014-05-06 13:45:44)
>>> On 06/05/14 06:32, Christian PERRIER wrote:
>>>> Quoting Nicolas Spalinger (nicolas_spalinger at sil.org):
>>>>> Upstream fontmatrix sources have moved to
>>>>> https://github.com/fontmatrix/fontmatrix
>>>>> Can someone please help prevent this autoremoval?
>>>> I'm somehow "tracking" this issue, but the real fix is in the 
>>>> fontmatrix package.
>>>> I actually wonder whether it is really a good idea to *depend* on 
>>>> packages. We should maybe only *recommend* this in order to avoid 
>>>> o-f-d-t to be in danger as soon as one of the packages in the 
>>>> toolkit is RC-buggy in the distribution.
>>>> So, the fix might be "s/Depends:/Recommends:"
>>> Since this is intended to be a meta-package (an empty package which 
>>> pulls in various other packages) what would work best?
>> I believe this is best:
>>   * Use "Depends:" generally, and keep the list up-to-date.
>>   * Use "Recommendends:" if available only on a subset of Debian 
>>     architectures.

I disagree with... oh, I wrote that myself.  I disagree with the past 
me, then:

  * Use "Depends:" only when all users of the (meta)package will 
    _always_ want the related package too
  * Use "Recommends:" generally, and keep the list up-to-date.
  * Use "Suggests:" for related package interesting only occationally
    and when available (including non-free and experimental packages).

Beware that demoting from "Depends:" to "Recommends:" allows our users a 
more fine-grained control over their package compositions, but is _not_ 
a fix to above specific issue - see below...

> Does anyone have any plans to get open-font-design-toolkit into a 
> state for release in jessie?
> Currently it is blocked on RC bugs in fontmatrix (missing sources) and 
> zpb-ttf (maintainers email address fails).
> Would it be sufficient to "Recommends:" on those?

No: Missing recommendations (not only dependencies) is an RC bug!

Thanks for asking explicitly, allowing me to clarify my earlier 
(arguably more distracting than helping) remarks.

> Or would it be necessary to remove the dependencies on those for the 
> package that goes in jessie?

Rather than dropping them, it would be adequate to demote to Suggests - 
if relevant, obviously - i.e. they are expected to get into shape again 
later (even if post Jessie: That might still be beneficial e.g. when 
using backports).

> zpb-ttf is effectively orphaned so I could upload a package to change 
> maintainer to the team. But the version 0.7-2 is way behind the 
> current version 1.0.3 . Would we really want 0.7 in jessie? I think we 
> should just remove the dependency and upload zpb-ttf with changed 
> maintainer to experimental.

Question to ask - this close to release - is not how much older $zyz is 
compared to $newest-shiniest, but whether $xyz is better for our users 
than not at all.

I don't know the package - is that version of that package any good?  
Better than not having it available, or worse than not having it?

> I think it is worth trying to sort out the missing sources for 
> fontmatrix and fix that RC bug.

Fixing RC bugs is always good!  Beware, though, that freeze starts 
*today* - don't get your hopes of too high for convincing release team 
to get those packages included.  Be careful to keep changes extremely 
minimal and follow their guidelines at 

Work getting those packages into shape is good even if it doesn't reach 
Jessie, obviously. :-)

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 949 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20141105/622b51d8/attachment-0002.sig>

More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel mailing list