[Pkg-fonts-devel] Update for fonts-sil-annapurna

[Fabian Greffrath]

Am Freitag, den 23.06.2017, 17:37 -0600 schrieb Bobby de Vos:
> 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?

Norbert is right when he states that there is no need for a transition
inside Debian for a package that has never been in Debian. But I also
see your concern for users of this external repository and I think we
can reasonably handle that.

If you turned fonts-sil-annapurnasil into a transitional package in
version 1.202-1, you should have Breaks and Replaces in the fonts-sil-
annapurna package's control file against "fonts-sil-annapurnasil (<<
1.202-1~)". This means that it is alright to have both packages
installed from version 1.202-1 on (and its potential backports, hence
the tilde).

Conflicts relationships are for packages which must never be installed
at the same time, regardless of their respective versions. This is not
necessarily caused by file conflicts, think about e.g. two mailer
daemons being installed in parallel.

> The font needs a shaping library such as HarfBuzz or Graphite2 to
> display correctly. That is why the shared library of libgraphite2-3 

Again, Norbert is right that it's not up to the library package to care
about which library is used to render it. Also, a Suggests relation
would be much to weak to ensure that (APT doesn't even install packages
listed in this field by default unless given a command line flag). And,
manual dependencies on shared libraries are dangerous in general,
because they don't follow SONAME changes automatically.

So, this line must go, please!

> 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.

No, it isn't, it may get removed.

> 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 [4] thread?

I don't want to introduce a Debianism into the fontconfig package, i.e.
a  distro patch that introduces a functional change that has not been
acknowledged by upstream.

Given the current opposition we got in the upstream bug report, what
alternatives do we have until the issue has settled?

1) Do not install WOFF files at all.
2) Install WOFF files in a directory where fontconfig will register
them.
3) Install WOFF files in a reasonable directory where fontconfig will
not register them and provide symlinks to directories where they are
needed.

I think, until the upstream bug is acted upon in one way or the other,
alternative 3 is the most reasonable solution. ;)

Cheers,

 - Fabian
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20170624/996f1e42/attachment.sig>