FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux General Discussion

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-25-2010, 10:02 PM
Ng Oon-Ee
 
Default gsfonts - package is updated?

Repository : extra
Name : gsfonts
Version : 1.0.7pre44-1
Installed : 8.11-5
URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/gs-fonts/

I'm assuming this is a simple mess upstream on non-consecutive version
numbers? The linked sourceforge page still lists 8.11 as the stable
version, while the one currently in extra is listed as 'pre' (and
doesn't seem available in the sourceforge page?
 
Old 03-25-2010, 10:07 PM
"Burlynn Corlew Jr (velcroshooz)"
 
Default gsfonts - package is updated?

2010/3/25 Ng Oon-Ee <ngoonee@gmail.com>

> Repository : extra
> Name : gsfonts
> Version : 1.0.7pre44-1
> Installed : 8.11-5
> URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/gs-fonts/
>
> I'm assuming this is a simple mess upstream on non-consecutive version
> numbers? The linked sourceforge page still lists 8.11 as the stable
> version, while the one currently in extra is listed as 'pre' (and
> doesn't seem available in the sourceforge page?
>
>
I assumed the same, though I cannot confirm its true. Important note for
people running it to this, because of the version change pacman will dump
out on Syu claiming local version is newer - this needs to be installed
manually with a standard -S. Just an FYI.
 
Old 03-25-2010, 10:07 PM
Giovanni Scafora
 
Default gsfonts - package is updated?

Il 26/03/2010 00:02, Ng Oon-Ee ha scritto:

Repository : extra
Name : gsfonts
Version : 1.0.7pre44-1
Installed : 8.11-5
URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/gs-fonts/

I'm assuming this is a simple mess upstream on non-consecutive version
numbers? The linked sourceforge page still lists 8.11 as the stable
version, while the one currently in extra is listed as 'pre' (and
doesn't seem available in the sourceforge page?



I guess that maintainer forgotten the force option.
svn log message says "Use newer version of the fonts as provided by
Fedora's package urw-fonts Fixes FS#10593"



--
Arch Linux Developer
http://www.archlinux.org
http://www.archlinux.it
 
Old 03-25-2010, 10:30 PM
Ng Oon-Ee
 
Default gsfonts - package is updated?

On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 00:07 +0100, Giovanni Scafora wrote:
> Il 26/03/2010 00:02, Ng Oon-Ee ha scritto:
> > Repository : extra
> > Name : gsfonts
> > Version : 1.0.7pre44-1
> > Installed : 8.11-5
> > URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/gs-fonts/
> >
> > I'm assuming this is a simple mess upstream on non-consecutive version
> > numbers? The linked sourceforge page still lists 8.11 as the stable
> > version, while the one currently in extra is listed as 'pre' (and
> > doesn't seem available in the sourceforge page?
> >
>
> I guess that maintainer forgotten the force option.
> svn log message says "Use newer version of the fonts as provided by
> Fedora's package urw-fonts Fixes FS#10593"
>
>
Yes, that seems to be what has happened.

Should this be handled by updating gsfonts (to pkgrel 2 with appropriate
force options) or by announcement?

Seems the gsfonts package is 'dead' upstream? And we're now taking from
Fedora's package? Or development simply moved there?
 
Old 03-25-2010, 10:31 PM
Xavier Chantry
 
Default gsfonts - package is updated?

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Giovanni Scafora
<giovanni@archlinux.org> wrote:
> Il 26/03/2010 00:02, Ng Oon-Ee ha scritto:
>>
>> Repository * * : extra
>> Name * * * * * : gsfonts
>> Version * * * *: 1.0.7pre44-1
>> Installed * * *: 8.11-5
>> URL * * * * * *: http://sourceforge.net/projects/gs-fonts/
>>
>> I'm assuming this is a simple mess upstream on non-consecutive version
>> numbers? The linked sourceforge page still lists 8.11 as the stable
>> version, while the one currently in extra is listed as 'pre' (and
>> doesn't seem available in the sourceforge page?
>>
>
> I guess that maintainer forgotten the force option.
> svn log message says "Use newer version of the fonts as provided by Fedora's
> package urw-fonts Fixes FS#10593"
>
>

It's indeed all well explained in the two comments of that bug :
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/10593#comment59554
 
Old 03-25-2010, 11:05 PM
Ng Oon-Ee
 
Default gsfonts - package is updated?

On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 00:31 +0100, Xavier Chantry wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Giovanni Scafora
> <giovanni@archlinux.org> wrote:
> > Il 26/03/2010 00:02, Ng Oon-Ee ha scritto:
> >>
> >> Repository : extra
> >> Name : gsfonts
> >> Version : 1.0.7pre44-1
> >> Installed : 8.11-5
> >> URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/gs-fonts/
> >>
> >> I'm assuming this is a simple mess upstream on non-consecutive version
> >> numbers? The linked sourceforge page still lists 8.11 as the stable
> >> version, while the one currently in extra is listed as 'pre' (and
> >> doesn't seem available in the sourceforge page?
> >>
> >
> > I guess that maintainer forgotten the force option.
> > svn log message says "Use newer version of the fonts as provided by Fedora's
> > package urw-fonts Fixes FS#10593"
> >
> >
>
> It's indeed all well explained in the two comments of that bug :
> http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/10593#comment59554

Oh! I thought the bug number was Fedora's bug tracker.... my bad.
Explains very well.
 
Old 03-26-2010, 06:40 AM
Firmicus
 
Default gsfonts - package is updated?

On 26/03/2010 00:07, Giovanni Scafora wrote:

Il 26/03/2010 00:02, Ng Oon-Ee ha scritto:

Repository : extra
Name : gsfonts
Version : 1.0.7pre44-1
Installed : 8.11-5
URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/gs-fonts/

I'm assuming this is a simple mess upstream on non-consecutive version
numbers? The linked sourceforge page still lists 8.11 as the stable
version, while the one currently in extra is listed as 'pre' (and
doesn't seem available in the sourceforge page?



I guess that maintainer forgotten the force option.
svn log message says "Use newer version of the fonts as provided by
Fedora's package urw-fonts Fixes FS#10593"




Oops, my fault sorry for that! I indeed forgot to use the "force" option.
Will fix that asap.
F

PS: Yes, the stupid version numbers for those fonts used upstream by the
ghostscript project is also part of the mess I was referring to, but far
worse it the fact that the fonts have not been released as a standalone
tarball for so long. The fonts themselves (outlines and metrics) are of
a very high quality, so there is no problem in that respect. It's just
that the ghostscript project does not seem to care releasing them. The
tarball was generated by Fedora from the ghostscript svn repo. The new
version not only fixes the bug mentioned above, but also adds glyphs for
Cyrillic.
 
Old 03-26-2010, 12:56 PM
Francois Charette
 
Default gsfonts - package is updated?

On 26/03/2010 11:18, Xavier Chantry wrote:

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Firmicus<Firmicus@gmx.net> wrote:


PS: Yes, the stupid version numbers for those fonts used upstream by the
ghostscript project is also part of the mess I was referring to, but far
worse it the fact that the fonts have not been released as a standalone
tarball for so long. The fonts themselves (outlines and metrics) are of a
very high quality, so there is no problem in that respect. It's just that
the ghostscript project does not seem to care releasing them. The tarball
was generated by Fedora from the ghostscript svn repo. The new version not
only fixes the bug mentioned above, but also adds glyphs for Cyrillic.



Did you try to communicate with upstream ? It is not always bound to failures
It just takes a few minutes to write a mail. And sometimes there are results !




Done
http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=687297#c31
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:51 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org