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

[Daniel Glassey]

On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 08:36:42PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> 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 
> <https://release.debian.org/jessie/freeze_policy.html>.
> 
> Work getting those packages into shape is good even if it doesn't reach 
> Jessie, obviously. :-)

Oops, I already completed and uploaded 1.5.1 before your mail. I'll make some revisions based on it 
for a 1.5.2 or 1.6 tomorrow.

Thanks,
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20141105/6141e492/attachment-0001.sig>