[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: unifont - consensus on dependencies


I didn't specify...yes, all of these dependencies are only for

Is it best to add "Build-Depends: xfonts-utils" even if all a package
needs from xfont-utils is bdftopcf?

I am aware of the /usr/share/fonts/truetype directory.  I've been
running Sarge, and it is there.  However, that is not under the X11
fonts tree.  If I place a font in /usr/share/fonts/truetype, is it still
legitimate to claim a font as being in section "main/x11"?  If not, what
is the preferred section?  The Debian Policy Manual, Chapter 11, doesn't
mention TrueType font policy.

I could conceivably create multiple packages, for example:

     - the TrueType font (most people will probably just want this and
nothing else); this could be called "unifont-ttf"

     - All sources to build the unifont.hex, TrueType, PCF, and BDF
versions of the font; this package could be called "unifont"

The TrueType font is larger than anything else: approximately 16
Megabytes uncompressed.  That doesn't include an SBIT table, which I
might add in the future.  I might work on the outline encoding in the
future to reduce that size.  The TrueType font is 3 Mbytes compressed. 
The entire source tree is about 15 Megabytes uncompressed, and less than
3 Megabytes compressed.

I could have the "unifont" package contain the pre-built TrueType font
plus all sources.  It takes about an hour plus 1 Gigabyte of virtual
memory to build the TrueType version with FontForge.

I could even forego the PCF font, which has never existed for the GNU
Unifont, unless there is an application that still must use PCF.  In
that case there wouldn't be a Build-Depends for "bdftopcf".  I put work
into getting the combining characters working properly (with zero width)
in the TrueType version.  The BDF version doesn't have that capability,
and so neither would a PCF version.

Paul Hardy
GPG Key ID: E6E6E390

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: unifont - consensus on dependencies
From: Drake Wilson <drake@begriffli.ch>
Date: Sun, June 22, 2008 10:44 am
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Quoth unifoundry@unifoundry.com, on 2008-06-22 10:02:15 -0700:
> If I must convert that to PCF it will add a dependency (on bdftopcf)
> that doesn't exist today. Must I never install the BDF font, but
> add a dependency for bdftopcf and only install a gzipped PCF
> version?

Are you confusing Depends and Build-Depends?

I would tend to assume that Build-Depends: xfonts-utils is reasonable
if BDF is used as an intermediary format. I see 93 packages
(according to [apt-rdepends -r -f Build-Depends xfonts-utils]) that
currently have that link, mostly also packages of fonts.

> The Debian Policy Manual does not list a directory under
> /usr/share/fonts/X11 for TrueType fonts. I plan to have the font be
> in the "main/x11" Debian section, and so would like the TrueType
> version of the font installed under the X11 hierarchy.

FWIW, various ttf-* packages that are also in the x11 section use the
/usr/share/fonts/truetype directory for this; see for example
ttf-bitstream-vera or ttf-freefont.

> 3) I'm using scripts originally written by Luis Gonzalez Miranda to
> convert unifont.hex files into TrueType using FontForge. Therefore I do
> intend to add a dependency on FontForge. There's no way around that
> dependency to produce the TrueType version.

Again, an installed package Depends or only a Build-Depends?

> Is there any software still in common use that will not handle TrueType
> fonts? Apparently Debian no longer has support for any software that
> only supports BDF fonts instead of PCF fonts, so it wouldn't be
> considered experimental to remove a BDF font.

Depending on how large the files are, I wonder whether a split package
(from the same source package) with one package containing TrueType
fonts and the other containing PCF fonts would be reasonable. Just a

 ---> Drake Wilson

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

Reply to: