Hi Daniel,
Quoting Daniel Glassey (2014-11-05 18:57:33)
> On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 02:25:32PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> Quoting Nicolas Spalinger (2014-05-06 13:45:44)
>>> On 06/05/14 06:32, Christian PERRIER wrote:
>>>> Quoting Nicolas Spalinger (nicolas_spalinger@sil.org):
>>>>>
>>>>> Upstream fontmatrix sources have moved to
>>>>> https://github.com/fontmatrix/fontmatrix
>>>>>
>>>>> Can someone please help prevent this autoremoval?
>>>>
>>>> I'm somehow "tracking" this issue, but the real fix is in the
>>>> fontmatrix package.
>>>>
>>>> I actually wonder whether it is really a good idea to *depend* on
>>>> packages. We should maybe only *recommend* this in order to avoid
>>>> o-f-d-t to be in danger as soon as one of the packages in the
>>>> toolkit is RC-buggy in the distribution.
>>>>
>>>> So, the fix might be "s/Depends:/Recommends:"
>>>
>>>
>>> Since this is intended to be a meta-package (an empty package which
>>> pulls in various other packages) what would work best?
>>
>> I believe this is best:
>>
>> * Use "Depends:" generally, and keep the list up-to-date.
>> * Use "Recommendends:" if available only on a subset of Debian
>> architectures.
I disagree with... oh, I wrote that myself. I disagree with the past
me, then:
* Use "Depends:" only when all users of the (meta)package will
_always_ want the related package too
* Use "Recommends:" generally, and keep the list up-to-date.
* Use "Suggests:" for related package interesting only occationally
and when available (including non-free and experimental packages).
Beware that demoting from "Depends:" to "Recommends:" allows our users a
more fine-grained control over their package compositions, but is _not_
a fix to above specific issue - see below...
> Does anyone have any plans to get open-font-design-toolkit into a
> state for release in jessie?
>
> Currently it is blocked on RC bugs in fontmatrix (missing sources) and
> zpb-ttf (maintainers email address fails).
>
> Would it be sufficient to "Recommends:" on those?
No: Missing recommendations (not only dependencies) is an RC bug!
Thanks for asking explicitly, allowing me to clarify my earlier
(arguably more distracting than helping) remarks.
> Or would it be necessary to remove the dependencies on those for the
> package that goes in jessie?
Rather than dropping them, it would be adequate to demote to Suggests -
if relevant, obviously - i.e. they are expected to get into shape again
later (even if post Jessie: That might still be beneficial e.g. when
using backports).
> zpb-ttf is effectively orphaned so I could upload a package to change
> maintainer to the team. But the version 0.7-2 is way behind the
> current version 1.0.3 . Would we really want 0.7 in jessie? I think we
> should just remove the dependency and upload zpb-ttf with changed
> maintainer to experimental.
Question to ask - this close to release - is not how much older $zyz is
compared to $newest-shiniest, but whether $xyz is better for our users
than not at all.
I don't know the package - is that version of that package any good?
Better than not having it available, or worse than not having it?
> I think it is worth trying to sort out the missing sources for
> fontmatrix and fix that RC bug.
Fixing RC bugs is always good! Beware, though, that freeze starts
*today* - don't get your hopes of too high for convincing release team
to get those packages included. Be careful to keep changes extremely
minimal and follow their guidelines at
<https://release.debian.org/jessie/freeze_policy.html>.
Work getting those packages into shape is good even if it doesn't reach
Jessie, obviously. :-)
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: signature