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