Re: fonts-font-awesome 5 (and 6)
Hi Nathan,
just a warning: I'm absolutely naive about packaging fonts so my
remarks might be not very sensible.
Am Sun, May 01, 2022 at 02:29:29PM +0100 schrieb Nathan Willis:
> > Upstream of r-cran-fontawesome embds Font Awesome v5. I noticed that
> > the fonts-font-awesome is tracking version 4, and that a previous
> > update to v5 was reverted as the major version numbers are not
> > compatible, and many Debian packages rely on v4 [1]. Upstream Font
> > Awesome treats the major versions as separate LTS releases and
> > probably the most useful thing would be for each of v4, v5, and v6 to
> > be available in Debian as separate packages, e.g.
> > fonts-font-awesome-5.
> >
>
> The underlying issue is that the Font Awesome upstream project changed its
> licensing with the release of v5, and the subsequent releases can't be
> packaged because it can't be built. It's essentially no longer free
> software after that point (although don't ask me to quote the precise
> nuances of the changes off the top of my head...).
That's somehow bad news. It would be good to have some more details.
As far as I know CRAN has a similar policy like Debian. So may be we
can tell them about the issue and CRAN will follow or licensing policy
and switch back to v4?
> That upstream licensing decision is why Fork Awesome was created in 2018,
> however: https://github.com/ForkAwesome/Fork-Awesome
> ... which is a FOSS project intentionally trying to track compatibility,
> but remaining open to contribution and building. It is packaged for Debian,
> although I can't speak directly to how one swaps out the packages in an R
> context. Long-term, I suspect that's what CRAN package maintainers will
> have to look at.
... or this fork?
> (Also please do note that I'm not involved in the project even though I got
> added to the GitHub project a long time ago; I think that was just because
> I knew some people who worked on it.)
>
> Anyway, that's the gist. I'm sure there are other people on this list who
> might could address practical matters better than I, but the licensing
> thing is essentially the core of it.
Some more detailed input would be really welcome.
> Sorry not to have an easy solution to offer,
Thank you for your hints anyway
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: