On Wed, Nov 05, 2014 at 08:36:42PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > 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. :-) Oops, I already completed and uploaded 1.5.1 before your mail. I'll make some revisions based on it for a 1.5.2 or 1.6 tomorrow. Thanks, Daniel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature