Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes: > Quoting Vasudev Kamath (2015-10-23 08:43:24) >> Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes: >> >>>> Now coming fonts-roboto, we need to package it from the actual >>>> upstream. >>> >>> Are you informing that you'll do the work, or who are "we" in above? >> >> We as in pkg-fonts team, it can be myself but I won't promise :-). > > There is a difference if you are a) taking the lead (informing) or b) > asking others to take lead (asking). It seemed like you were doing > neither (asking for consensus without a fallback on personal decision) > which I find is effectively is b) but worse because those you ask are > not aware that if not responding then nothing happens. Interesting :-). Though I never had such thoughts in mind. Thanks for this interpretation. Anyway I will take up fonts-roboto because its my package. > > >>> Droid, however seems not moved to Noto but instead abandoned upstream. >>> I suggest to keep current source package for Droid, move it to section >>> oldlibs, file bugreports to rdepends warning it might be dropped and >>> encouraging to consider use Noto instead. >> >> Now there are some questions: >> >> 1. How long do we keep fonts-droid? For stretch release? > > Until no longer needed. Or if in a hurry (but what's the rush?) until > we no longer care to wait for slow rdepends to align with our change. OK. > > >> 2. By default fonts-droid ships Fallback fonts also but upstream has >> updated it in newer release. So drop Fallback from fonts-droid and >> create new package tracking upstream Vcs and add dependencies to >> fonts-droid? > > Move the parts that has moved source, but don't drop parts without a new > source until no longer depended on (or impatience runs out - see above): > the fallback font is exactly the reason ghostscript depends on > fonts-android, as an example. For clarification fonts-android is a source package, so I assume Ghostscript depends on fonts-droid. > > >>> We can then either >>> a) keep Droid as-is for eternity, >>> b) gradually bump severy of those bugreports as we get closer to >>> freeze and drop package before freeze, or >>> c) update source package (eventually renaming it just to look >>> nicer) if we learn that upstream maintenance is renewed >>> (either by Google who commissioned the fonts, or Ascender who >>> seems to own copyright for it, or Christian Robertson who >>> authored it originally, or whoever else choosing to step up). >> >> Not clear what you mean by point "c" can you please elaborate?. > > It is like a) but with renewed activity upstream so moving section back > from oldlibs to fonts. It is tracking upstream of the remains of the > package. It is maybe renaming to fonts-droid-fallback, since it sounds > like that is the only part being left behind. Alright!. Cheers,
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature