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

Bug#970491: nmu: ghostscript_9.53.1~dfsg-1



Hi Paul,

Quoting Paul Gevers (2020-09-17 10:04:39)
> On 17-09-2020 09:43, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Package: release.debian.org
> > Severity: normal
> > User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> > Usertags: binnmu
> >
> > nmu ghostscript_9.53.1~dfsg-1 . ANY . unstable . -m "re-sync symlinks with newer release of fonts-urw-base35"
> > 
> > A new release of fonts-urw-base35 was introduced to unstable, and 
> > ghostscript need to symlink direct paths for those fonts (not go 
> > through fontconfig) which requires a rebuild when font is updated.
> 
> Without having looked at details myself, but what does it mean if we 
> wouldn't do this? I.e. is ghostscript broken? If so, only in unstable 
> because fonts-urw-base35 won't migrate? If the answers are yes to the 
> first and no the second there is something wrong with dependencies.

Ghostscript package uses dh_linktree, which has this to say:

> Since symlink trees are created statically at build-time, they are not 
> very future-proof and have a risk to miss some files introduced by a 
> newer version of the package providing the file tree which is 
> duplicated. That's why the generated dependencies generally ensure 
> that the same upstream version be used at run-time than at build-time.

In my understanding, ghostscript _could_ become broken _if_ a newer font 
package changes paths: Ghostscript wuold then ship with dangling 
symlinks (which might in itself be an RC-level issue) and this would 
cause some functionality of the ghostscript package to fail.

Does that answer your question?

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature


Reply to: