Re: RFS: urw-garamond-no8
Hi,
Kevin Bube <k.bube@web.de> wrote:
> After reading bug #366234 I set debhelper requirement to >=5.0.35. See
Fine. That's also what I had done with lmodern in the meantime.
>> 3. I'm not a native english speaker, but I would modify the Description
>> field this way:
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>
> Okay, I applied your suggestion.
You forgot to add the "s" to "font" in the short description. Your
package is not shipping one font, but several fonts from the same
family.
> Okay, I chose a bit different style, but I hope to have reproduced all
> necessary information.
Yes, that looks good. You could change:
The files in the debian/ directory are
(c) 2006 Kevin Bube.
to
The files pertaining to the Debian packaging are
(c) 2006 Kevin Bube.
which is a bit broader (covers .diff.gz) and easier to understand for
people who don't know about the source package...
>> 8. There are many problems in your urw-garamond.defoma-hints file.
>> At first glance:
>>
>> - confusion in the Weight attributes;
Still wrong. You declare ugm Medium as Medium-weighted and ugm Regular
as Bold-weighted. This is the other way around.
>> - X-FontName not in accordance with your urw-garamond.scale;
This is fixed, but please use lowercase for these names.
>> - you should be using FaceNum and Inherit since you declare
>> multiple charsets in the .scale file;
Your Inherit has a Typo ("Priorty" instead of "Priority"). And why don't
you include 'FontName' and 'AFM' therein? For lmodern, I use:
Inherit = FontName Family GeneralFamily Weight Width Shape Direction Priority AFM
> Okay, I rewrote the defoma-hints file. I hope I have it now, although I
> have to admit, I did not completely understand the charset stuff. I
> ommited many of the fonts mkfontscale found and only kept
> iso8859-{1,15} as these are the ones I am used to and know they
> work. How can one determine reliably which charsets a .pfb file
> contains?
I don't know of any other way than manually checking each character
defined in the charset... which is obviously a PITA.
As for the charsets, I am not opposed to declaring those that
mkfontscale found in your previous package:
iso8859-1
iso8859-15
-> probably OK
microsoft-cp1252
-> may be OK (I believe it is close to iso8859-1)
iso10646-1
-> of course, the whole charset is not covered in urw-garamond-no8,
but I don't think many fonts do cover it in its entirety... so,
I'm not sure about when it is appropriate to declare this
charset.
But there is a problem: you declare FontName1, Charset1 and X-FontName1
twice instead of using FontName2, etc. the second time.
> I used your sed script from lmodern (0.99.3-2) to generate the .scale
> file.
Well, the whole point is to use it at package build time...
Also, I wrote a sed script for lmodern but this awful language is hardly
readable; if you want to write a similar script in Python for your
package, that's perfectly fine with me.
> This omits the *-unregistered-font_specific entries. Is this on
> purpose?
Yes, I think it's useless to declare such a charset (in fact, the script
doesn't omit this charset specifically, but only extracts what is
declared in attributes matching the pattern 'X-FontName[0-9]'). OTOH, in
your case, the fonts are in Adobe StandardEncoding. This one could be
declared, as mkfontscale found out.
>> 14. The "dh_installdirs $(X11DST)" is feeling lonely. Merge it with the
>> first dh_installdirs call to save one Perl process per build. Same
>> thing with "dh_installdirs etc/X11/fonts/X11R7/Type1".
>
> Okay. I also dropped the X11R7 from the path.
Fine.
>> 15. The build will fail whenever the expansion of "$(CURDIR)" contains
>> spaces. You should use double quotes at several places.
>
> Hopefully done. I quoted all $FOOSRC variables, where the problem could
> occur.
Doesn't work. Try it.
> W: urw-garamond-no8 source: build-depends-without-arch-dep defoma
> W: urw-garamond-no8 source: build-depends-without-arch-dep tex-common
>
> Can they be ignored? The binary package depends on both.
As Frank wrote, they can be ignored. OTOH, it is easy to make them
disappear.
> Next week I will be on a conference where I won't be mailable. I guess I
> will be back online on Monday, June 12th.
OK, no problem.
I noticed a slight problem in your new debian/rules file: the following
comment:
# normally at build time nothing has to be done
is misplaced (the build target is several lines above).
And last but not least, the following clause of the license:
,----[ PUBLIC ]
| If you have modified the Program, you must cause the Work
| to carry prominent notices stating that you have modified
| the Program's files and the date of any change. In each
| source file that you have modified, you must include a
| prominent notice that you have modified the file,
| including your name, your e-mail address (if any), and the
| date and purpose of the change;
`----
is still not respected (I do hope it is possible to put appropriate
comments in .pfb files), and has to be resolved upstream.
Also, I think it would be better if Walter Schmidt used garamond-no8
instead of garamond in the TEXMF tree (e.g.,
/usr/share/texmf/fonts/afm/urw/garamond-no8/ instead of
/usr/share/texmf/fonts/afm/urw/garamond/). But maybe he won't be willing
to do that because 'garamond' does fit in those pesky 8.3 limits whereas
garamond-no8 does not...
Regards,
--
Florent
Reply to: