Policy restriction to depend on font packages
 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi people.

Policy 11.8.5.1 says:

"If one or more of the fonts so packaged are
necessary for proper operation of the package with which they are
associated the font
package may be Recommended; if the fonts merely provide an
enhancement, a Suggests
relationship may be used. Packages must not Depend on font packages."

Annotation to this paragraph is :

"This is because the X server may retrieve fonts from the local file
system or over the network from an X font
server; the Debian package system is empowered to deal only with the
local file system."

Then I searched the Debian archive (in case of TrueType fonts):

$ grep-aptavail -F Depends "ttf-" -s Package | wc -l
93

$ grep-aptavail ( -F Recommends "ttf-" --or -F Suggests "ttf-" )
- --and ! -F Depends "ttf-" -s Package | wc -l
101

So, there are 93 packages that violate "must" directive of policy.
Some of them: fontconfig-config, blender, openjdk-6-jre,
openoffice.org-core, vlc. And, as I understand, it leads to 93 bugs of
"serious" severity and yet another pain for release team.

Should I mass-file the bugs or this situation can be resolved through
different approach?

Regards,
- --
Eugene V. Lyubimkin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkh82RgACgkQchorMMFUmYymIQCgsQnmJ7pIIB JifTBebGYfx2QQ
8cgAnimYinZrpdlaIs12FkuEFVM0elrQ
=wG1l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Policy restriction to depend on font packages
 

[Eugene V. Lyubimkin]
> Should I mass-file the bugs or this situation can be resolved
> through different approach?

Your message was a bit short on exactly what problem you are trying to
solve. How is the font dependency affecting users of the packages? I
suspect fontconfig-config work on the fonts on disk, not the ones
available via the X server, and am thus unsure if the quoted policy
really is intended for the packages you talk about.

Happy hacking,
--
Petter Reinholdtsen


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Policy restriction to depend on font packages
 

Hi,

Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> Some of them: fontconfig-config, blender, openjdk-6-jre,
> openoffice.org-core, vlc. And, as I understand, it leads to 93 bugs of
> "serious" severity and yet another pain for release team.

ttf-opensymbol comes out of openoffice.org itself (easily checkable) and is
needed for basic operation. You won't get any bullet in OOos lists without it.

You don't really want that as a Recommends, do you?

> Should I mass-file the bugs or this situation can be resolved through
> different approach?

I'd first check why packages depend on font packages and where those
font packages come from...

Regards,

Rene


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Policy restriction to depend on font packages
 

Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org> writes:

> ttf-opensymbol comes out of openoffice.org itself (easily checkable) and
> is needed for basic operation. You won't get any bullet in OOos lists
> without it.

Even if you're running an X font server on a different host that is
providing that font? Does that not work? (I haven't tried to use one
since TTF fonts became possible, and don't know if it even works with
TTF.)

> You don't really want that as a Recommends, do you?

The reason for the Policy requirement for Recommends is to enable font
servers and not require all the fonts be installed locally when you're
running a font server.

It's possible that font servers are quaint bit of computer history that no
one cares about any more, though, in which case Policy should change.

--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Policy restriction to depend on font packages
 

2008/7/15 Eugene V. Lyubimkin <jackyf.devel@gmail.com>:

> Then I searched the Debian archive (in case of TrueType fonts):
>
> $ grep-aptavail -F Depends "ttf-" -s Package | wc -l
> 93
>
> $ grep-aptavail ( -F Recommends "ttf-" --or -F Suggests "ttf-" )
> - --and ! -F Depends "ttf-" -s Package | wc -l
> 101
>
> So, there are 93 packages that violate "must" directive of policy.
> Some of them: fontconfig-config, blender, openjdk-6-jre,
> openoffice.org-core, vlc. And, as I understand, it leads to 93 bugs of
> "serious" severity and yet another pain for release team.

Many games depend on ttf fonts being available, and they are a MUST
(without them, the game just won't work). Shall we remove the depend
on them and duplicate the fonts inside the game package?

Greetings,
Miry


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Policy restriction to depend on font packages
 

[dropping -release from Cc]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 15:11:44 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org> writes:
>
> > ttf-opensymbol comes out of openoffice.org itself (easily checkable) and
> > is needed for basic operation. You won't get any bullet in OOos lists
> > without it.
>
> Even if you're running an X font server on a different host that is
> providing that font? Does that not work? (I haven't tried to use one
> since TTF fonts became possible, and don't know if it even works with
> TTF.)
>
> > You don't really want that as a Recommends, do you?
>
> The reason for the Policy requirement for Recommends is to enable font
> servers and not require all the fonts be installed locally when you're
> running a font server.
>
> It's possible that font servers are quaint bit of computer history that no
> one cares about any more, though, in which case Policy should change.
>
That section of policy is about "fonts for the X Window System", which a
footnote defines as fonts "accessed via X protocol requests" (a.k.a core
fonts, or server-side fonts). Most apps nowadays use client-side fonts
(through Xft), not server-side fonts.

So policy 11.8.5 only talks about the xfonts-* packages, not the ttf-*
ones, at least as I understand it.

Cheers,
Julien


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Policy restriction to depend on font packages
 

Quoting Eugene V. Lyubimkin (jackyf.devel@gmail.com):

> Should I mass-file the bugs or this situation can be resolved through
> different approach?


While you're technically right, apparently, I think that this issue
should be solved by a discussion to either adapt the policy wrt
current practice (font servers are rather odd in these days of
mobility) or delay the solution to this after the release.

The point is basically: we perfectly live with this "problem" for
years, so do we really want to delay the release by adding 93 RC bugs
for something that is basically cosmetic while we have a pile of RC
bugs that aren't cosmetic and are already delaying the release?

I'd vote the eventually discuss the issue now (adapt the policy or
make this a release goal for lenny+1) but agree to not make it a
blocker for lenny.

Policy restriction to depend on font packages
 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Eugene V. Lyubimkin (jackyf.devel@gmail.com):
>
>> Should I mass-file the bugs or this situation can be resolved through
>> different approach?
>
>
> While you're technically right, apparently, I think that this issue
> should be solved by a discussion to either adapt the policy wrt
> current practice (font servers are rather odd in these days of
> mobility) or delay the solution to this after the release.
>
> The point is basically: we perfectly live with this "problem" for
> years, so do we really want to delay the release by adding 93 RC bugs
> for something that is basically cosmetic while we have a pile of RC
> bugs that aren't cosmetic and are already delaying the release?
I think that of course, no. I don't want to delay Lenny release in any way.

Julien Cristau has mentioned that policy 11.8.5 talks about only
server-side packages and not TrueType (and some others?). In this case
there is no problem at all and I can only suggest to add a note to
policy to specify this more explicitly.

Sorry for noise.

- --
Regards,
Eugene V. Lyubimkin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkh9yfEACgkQchorMMFUmYzjpQCfXJ5MtxbnlK DQiqRHzc8d7809
zSkAn0Zdh6ujJMV7HKnQmApJBQkfxO1B
=OlDz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org