[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.

>> 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.


-------------- 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