Bug#899124: fa-solid-900.ttf symlinked as fontawesome-webfont.ttf
On 06/16/2018 03:57 PM, Alexis Murzeau wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 13:31:48 +0100 Sean Whitton
> <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> wrote:
>> Hello Vasudev,
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 05:16:05PM +0530, Vasudev Kamath wrote:
>>>
>>> I read through and prepared a version to experimental which symlinks
>>> fa-solid-900.ttf as fontawesome-webfont.ttf. I've uploaded it to
>>> experimental, can you please check if this helps?.
>>>
>>> @Others Please let me know if this new version in experimental with
>>> suggestion from Thomas improves situation in your cases.
>>
>> This does not help the mkdocs-bootstrap case. That appears to need the
>> .woff2 font.
>>
>> --
>> Sean Whitton
>
> Hi,
>
> This and openstack-dashboard install failure require more symlinks and
> files from v4.
>
> Isn't reverting the package to v4 while creating a new one for the
> version 5 (say fonts-font-awesome-5) better to handle all these v4/5
> breaks ?
I agree, also because even with the symlinks, there would be still 4
missing glyphs in the openstack-dashboard (I tried and survey it).
Though, I could probably find replacements in fa-solid-900, it'd be
nicer to just not break things.
> I'm not sure it is a good solution trying to patch fonts-font-awesome v5
> to be compatible with v4 while upstream might continue to even more
> break things with v4 later.
>
> Subsequent maintenance on the v4 package should not require much work as
> upstream says they don't plan any further versions on the v4 branch [1]:
I agree.
> So this v4 package would be dropped once other packages move to
> fonts-font-awesome-5 with proper upgrade path (ie. without hacks to fake
> v4 with v5). Especially packages that use sphinx RTD theme where
> upstream still use v4 and it seems many packages actually have a
> theme.css based on that theme.
>
> I myself tried to patch theme.css to use fonts-font-awesome 5 shim but
> its a ugly big approximate patch that happen to mostly work :( [2]
>
> What do you think about this ?
I also would like to highlight that what you're describing here is the
workflow of a transition, which is what Debian has been doing for
*years*. Not only this is natural in Debian, but it is also very much
recommended when breakage occurs.
I'm by the way a bit frustrated that this process is taking so long.
This has a huge impact in the maintenance of a big dozen of my packages,
since Horizon can't be installed. Reverting is really not a lot of work.
Can we get this done soon, as it seems to be the consensus? If the
current font-awesome maintainer is busy, maybe someone else (me?) can do
the work?
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Reply to: