[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Font-Awesome 5 no build system DFSG compatibility

On 19/07/2018 15:46, Walter Landry wrote:
> Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> writes:
>>> Considering DFSG #2:
>>>> The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
>>>> source code as well as compiled form.
>> The "program" (package, module) includes source code: [x]
>> The license allows distribution of that source code: [x]
> You may or may not consider this dispositive, but the definition of
> source code from GPL v3 is 
>   The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all
>   the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable
>   work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to
>   control those activities.
> So a makefile or equivalent is required.
> On a more practical level, Debian has to be able to rebuild all of the
> binaries from source.  If you can not do that, then that would be an RC
> bug.

I was thinking about this.

Actually, many files are text files and could be considered as sources
files (excluding minified files which are obviously generated).

But many of them contains the same thing:
 - javascript code:
   - js files meant to be used with node.js [0]
   - js files for svg webfont [1]
 - glyph data (shape paths):
   - single svg containing all glyphs [2]
   - multiple svg containing only one glyph each [3]
   - glyphs metadata contain glyph svg in a "raw" field [4]
   - js files for node.js contains glyph path data [5]
 - typescript files (*.d.ts) for node.js seem to be all the same, see 2
   [6], [7]
 - advanced-options/use-with-node-js/fontawesome-free/ [8] folder seems
to contain many files also in web-fonts-with-css/ [9] and in
advanced-options/use-with-node-js/fontawesome-free-webfonts/ [10]
 - [11] and [12] seems to be the same (beside the version in comments)
 - There are multiple fonts format (otf, ttf, woff2, ...), by reading
trough issues on github, it seems that there are all generated from the
.otf ones, but using an online website ([13])
 - There are also svg files containing all glyphs along with webfonts
[14], maybe same as [2]

There are probably other files duplicated.

All files are just text files that can be patched easily beside fonts
and .min.* files.
I mean, there are not opaque binaries that can't be patched without
specialized tools and knowledge.

But one issue in one of them will probably require modification in some
other files too.

This can be OK though ("just" a maintenance burden to remember that a
bug might span multiple files)
Not sure what to think about generated webfonts.

At least, minified files can be regenerated at package build time with
known tools that does this (maybe upstream can help to use the same tool
as them)

I also think of the many potential reverse dependencies once
python3-sphinx will move to font awesome 5. It would be great to have
font awesome 5 in main avoiding them to move to contrib.

Keeping minified files appart, given the nature of generated files
(either correctly indented files or font files), I'm leaning toward
Simon's way to think about this.

What do you think Walter ?


> Cheers,
> Walter Landry






[13] https://www.fontsquirrel.com/tools/webfont-generator


Alexis Murzeau
PGP: B7E6 0EBB 9293 7B06 BDBC  2787 E7BD 1904 F480 937F

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: