Bug#225004: tetex-extra: Type1 fonts should be in a separate package
> Well, I've read that passage, but I couldn't found anything about,
> that I have to. Only what I have to do, if I want to.
I guess you want obtain any good result without font.scale.
> I found that name xfonts-* reasonable.
So do I. I was just explaining that the reasons I chose lmodern-x11
were:
1. gsfonts{,-x11} looked like a very similar package, so I looked at
it closely;
2. I knew of xfonts-{75,100}dpi, xfonts-scalable that come from the
xfree86 source package and from this observation, I induced that
the xfonts- prefix was reserved for font packages generated from
xfree86. Apparently, not all font package maintainers induced the
same way as I did. ;-)
>> http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Font-HOWTO/xfonts.html#AEN223
>>
> OK, I'll have a look at that.
I believe it doesn't say much, but it mentioned type1inst...
> *grummel* I can't run unstable and I don't have Gnome 2 handy. If
> anybody else is willing to add defoma support I'd appreciate it.
With a sid chroot, you can:
- launch X from the chroot (so, Xfree 4.2 currently)
- display X apps launched from the chroot on your regular woody X
using TCP sockets (DISPLAY=localhost:0, and proper use of xauth);
you should also firewall connections from the outside to the ports
these sockets are listening on (6000 + DISPLAY_NUMBER).
I use both techniques. The second one is the most handy in general and
it even allows you to display GNOME 2 apps on you regular Xfree from
woody.
You have no excuse. ;-)
> Well, at any time debian/rules calls "dh_installdocs -i". I've
> excluded my package now. I guess, I have to write a proper copyright
> file for that package.
Since the fonts are included in the tetex package, the main
new-generation (ask Frank ;-) copyright file should be enough.
> Do I have to include the Debian-changelog into tetex-extra-fonts?
Yes, Debian packages must always have a Debian changelog.
Note: If package A depends on B, policy allows you to have
/usr/share/doc/A be a symlink to /usr/share/doc/B. Often, it is
easier for the Debian maintainer _and_ the user (doesn't have to
check every possible /usr/share/doc/directory). That is what I
will do in the next lmodern version but I am still waiting for -8
to reach the archive (*grummel* delayed because it has a new
binary package...). In this case, you should probably link to
/usr/share/doc/tetex-fonts if I remember the name correctly.
>> Does tetex-extra-fonts really replace all these packages???
>>
> Nope. I've just taken the line from tetex-extra. I guess I should
> clean up there too...
> As there are many package, which seems to be from the pre-teTeX era,
> I can't do so much about it as I don't know these.
Neither do I...
>> Also, PostScript is written PostScript.
>>
> Should I add [TM]? SCNR.
I don't think so. :)
But really, I didn't make this up. This specific case is described in:
http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-best-pkging-practices.en.html#s-bpp-desc-basics
(can also be found on Adobe's web site, of course...)
> dh_installxfonts brings in a dependency on xutils (>= 4.0.3-xx) as
> described in the policy. If this is not sufficient I'd rather swap
> over that bug to debhelper and update the policy too.
Sure, this would be better, if debhelper is updated quickly enough.
> don't look very critical, as the post{in,rm} skript will look for
> the existence of update-fonts-dir before trying to call it.
Yes, I was just informing you on the opinion of the XFree86 maintainer.
> Well, I said preliminary patch. Suggestions for the descriptions,
> packages names, build system etc. are welcome.
I think Frank handled that.
> 10.5. Symbolic links
> --------------------
>
> In general, symbolic links within a top-level directory should
> be relative, and symbolic links pointing from one top-level
> directory into another should be absolute. (A top-level
> directory is a sub-directory of the root directory /'.)
>
> For us the latter is the case. AFAICS.
How so? /usr is a top-level directory and both the fonts and the symlink
are under /usr. A Policy-compliant symlink in this case looks like:
~ % cd /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/Type1
/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/Type1 % ls -l lmr10.pfb
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 58 2004-02-07 21:00 lmr10.pfb -> ../../../../../share/texmf/fonts/type1/public/lm/lmr10.pfb
>From you sed expression, I have the impression you are creating absolute
symlinks.
FYI, this is not to annoy people. I seem to recall that it avoids
breaking things when you have links like the old /usr/doc pointing to
/usr/share/doc (in such cases, ../ in symlinks can be surprising
depending on the path you choose).
If you understand this, you won't need to use dh_link and will save a
lot of build time if you link many files (dh_link is written in Perl;
and if you choose to list all the links on one command-line, there is
the risk of overflowing it).
> Latest version attached.
Didn't check. I trust you to reflect the remarks.
--
Florent
Reply to: