[Pkg-fonts-devel] Update for fonts-sil-annapurna
Bobby de Vos
bobby_devos at sil.org
Fri Jun 23 23:37:53 UTC 2017
On 2017-06-08 05:04, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> I just had a look through the packagging that I could find here:
Thank you for your efforts.
> - You add versioned Breaks and Replaces against a package that is not in
> Debian. Why is this necessary and what happens for version numbers (>=
> 1.202)? If this is indeed an unversioned Breaks, please turn it into a
> Conflicts relationship instead.
I see you point about fonts-sil-annapurnasil not being a Debian package
and can certainly remove those lines. Those lines were added by Daniel
Glassey (a DD) for making a package for packages.sil.org (PSO) which
hosts Ubuntu packages for users primarily in SIL. On PSO a package
fonts-sil-annapurnasil was created before it was realized that Debian
had fonts-sil-annapurna. In order to transition PSO to using the same
package names as Debian something needed to be done.
Even if I remove these lines, how should I handle the transition on PSO?
I face this issue with more than one font package, and also TECkit,
which is on PSO (one of the package names is libteckit) but Debian has
libteckit0  so I also need to transition the package on PSO.
I thought I was following the package transition guidelines  for #5
Rename which says to use Breaks/Replaces. Item #5 links to another page
that discusses Breaks/Replaces. I also read about Conflicts and Breaks
in the policy manual at  and thought Breaks was the correct choice.
What did I miss?
Even if I use Breaks/Replaces I am confused by what version number to
use (and what operator such as << or <=). So, on PSO I now have
fonts-sil-annapurnasil and fonts-sil-annapurna, both at version 1.202-1.
The package sil-annapurnasil is a transitional package. Except for
having a transitional package, I don't intend for there to be another,
later version of sil-annapurnasil, I would be happy to have
fonts-sil-annapurna be the renamed replacement of
fonts-sil-annapurnasil. How do I best ensure apt-get dist-upgrade
handles this correctly?
> - Why on earth should a font package suggest a shared library? Please
> remove this line.
The font needs a shaping library such as HarfBuzz or Graphite2 to
display correctly. That is why the shared library of libgraphite2-3 is
listed. How else do I ensure a shaping library in installed, or is that
a default at this point in time? Also, this line was added by Daniel,
and I did not think I had the expertise to override what he had done.
> - This file shouldn't be necessary if you install the fonts by an
> 'install' file, which you do.
This makes sense to me for installing a package. Nicolas Spalinger
wondered if the dirs file was needed to cleanly remove the created
directories when the package was removed.
> - So you install the WOFF font files into the documentation directory. And
> while I find that ugly and close to unacceptable, I have to admit that we
> currently don't have any real alternative without triggering fontconfig.
> What I'd like better, though, would be if you could install the files into
> /usr/share/fonts-sil-annapurna/woff (i.e. without "fonts/") and symlink
> the files into the documentation directory. Strictly speaking, they aren't
> documentation itself but merely needed to properly render the docs.
Indeed, I realize WOFF files in the documentation directory has been an
issue. This package was prepared before we had a good understanding of
the WOFF spec, IIRC. And I thank you for helping to discuss it and file
a bug with fontconfig. Am I understanding you correctly that using the
location /usr/share/fonts-sil-annapurna/woff is better than a fontconfig
override as discussed in this  thread?
Bobby de Vos
/bobby_devos at sil.org/
More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel