[Pkg-fonts-devel] Future of fonts-android (source) [Was: updated fonts-androd has fonts missing]

Jonas Smedegaard dr at jones.dk
Fri Oct 23 08:10:29 UTC 2015

Quoting Vasudev Kamath (2015-10-23 08:43:24)
> Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> writes:
>>> Now coming fonts-roboto, we need to package it from the actual 
>>> upstream.
>> Are you informing that you'll do the work, or who are "we" in above?
> We as in pkg-fonts team, it can be myself but I won't promise :-).

There is a difference if you are a) taking the lead (informing) or b) 
asking others to take lead (asking).  It seemed like you were doing 
neither (asking for consensus without a fallback on personal decision) 
which I find is effectively is b) but worse because those you ask are 
not aware that if not responding then nothing happens.

>> Droid, however seems not moved to Noto but instead abandoned upstream.  
>> I suggest to keep current source package for Droid, move it to section 
>> oldlibs, file bugreports to rdepends warning it might be dropped and 
>> encouraging to consider use Noto instead.
> Now there are some questions:
> 1. How long do we keep fonts-droid? For stretch release?

Until no longer needed.  Or if in a hurry (but what's the rush?) until 
we no longer care to wait for slow rdepends to align with our change.

> 2. By default fonts-droid ships Fallback fonts also but upstream has
>    updated it in newer release. So drop Fallback from fonts-droid and
>    create new package tracking upstream Vcs and add dependencies to
>    fonts-droid?

Move the parts that has moved source, but don't drop parts without a new 
source until no longer depended on (or impatience runs out - see above): 
the fallback font is exactly the reason ghostscript depends on 
fonts-android, as an example.

>> We can then either 
>>  a) keep Droid as-is for eternity, 
>>  b) gradually bump severy of those bugreports as we get closer to
>>     freeze and drop package before freeze, or
>>  c) update source package (eventually renaming it just to look 
>>     nicer) if we learn that upstream maintenance is renewed 
>>     (either by Google who commissioned the fonts, or Ascender who 
>>     seems to own copyright for it, or Christian Robertson who 
>>     authored it originally, or  whoever else choosing to step up).
> Not clear what you mean by point "c" can you please elaborate?.

It is like a) but with renewed activity upstream so moving section back 
from oldlibs to fonts.  It is tracking upstream of the remains of the 
package.  It is maybe renaming to fonts-droid-fallback, since it sounds 
like that is the only part being left behind.

 - 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: 819 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20151023/50ef7150/attachment.sig>

More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel mailing list