[Pkg-fonts-devel] Future of fonts-android (source) [Was: updated fonts-androd has fonts missing]
Vasudev Kamath
vasudev at copyninja.info
Fri Oct 23 08:45:46 UTC 2015
Jonas Smedegaard <dr at jones.dk> writes:
> 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.
Interesting :-). Though I never had such thoughts in mind. Thanks for
this interpretation.
Anyway I will take up fonts-roboto because its my package.
>
>
>>> 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.
OK.
>
>
>> 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.
For clarification fonts-android is a source package, so I assume
Ghostscript depends on fonts-droid.
>
>
>>> 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.
Alright!.
Cheers,
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 818 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20151023/49aceca8/attachment.sig>
More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel
mailing list