Bug#225004: tetex-extra: Type1 fonts should be in a separate package
Florent Rougon <f.rougon@free.fr> schrieb:
>>> http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Font-HOWTO/xfonts.html#AEN223
>>>
>> OK, I'll have a look at that.
>
> I believe it doesn't say much, but it mentioned type1inst...
>
>> *grummel* I can't run unstable and I don't have Gnome 2 handy. If
>> anybody else is willing to add defoma support I'd appreciate it.
>
> With a sid chroot, you can:
> - launch X from the chroot (so, Xfree 4.2 currently)
> - display X apps launched from the chroot on your regular woody X
> using TCP sockets (DISPLAY=localhost:0, and proper use of xauth);
> you should also firewall connections from the outside to the ports
> these sockets are listening on (6000 + DISPLAY_NUMBER).
>
> I use both techniques. The second one is the most handy in general and
> it even allows you to display GNOME 2 apps on you regular Xfree from
> woody.
Hm, didn't try all that. But what I did was install tetex-extra-fonts
and xfonts-tetex built from Hilmars first patch and fire up
Xfontsel. There are a lot of font families even without that, but I
couldn't find any new ones. How are they called? And how are they
distinguished from the similar fonts from libgnomeprint-data
(/usr/share/fonts/{adobe,urw}-urw.font)?
>> Well, at any time debian/rules calls "dh_installdocs -i". I've
>> excluded my package now. I guess, I have to write a proper copyright
>> file for that package.
>
> Since the fonts are included in the tetex package, the main
> new-generation (ask Frank ;-) copyright file should be enough.
Yes, but it wouldn't harm to have a separate one, with just the
copyright for the included fonts. I can't help at the moment, because I
decided to do the font stuff at the end. I swear, this was before this
issue turned up here ;-).
> binary package...). In this case, you should probably link to
> /usr/share/doc/tetex-fonts if I remember the name correctly.
tetex-extra-fonts - that's what he's doing yet.
>>> Does tetex-extra-fonts really replace all these packages???
>>>
>> Nope. I've just taken the line from tetex-extra. I guess I should
>> clean up there too...
>> As there are many package, which seems to be from the pre-teTeX era,
>> I can't do so much about it as I don't know these.
>
> Neither do I...
I would suggest we simply take the freedom to ignore these for the fonts
packages. Anybody upgrading from pre-woody to sarge or later will have
harder problems than just this.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Reply to: