Re: Bug#482554: latex-cjk-common: freetype1 deprecation
Hi, 老孫, the master of strategy, :-)
I was not expecting to exchange email from 2nd century BC person
without Time-machine.
Watch out for your enemy spreading bad rumor on you. As I understand,
many of ancient Chinese gurus were killed by their master due to such
rumor.
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 07:44:09PM +0200, "Sun Tzu (孫子)" wrote:
> Osamu Aoki schreef:
> > Package: latex-cjk-common
> > Version: 4.7.0+git20080122-1
> > Severity: important
> > Tags: patch
> >
> > Hi, I heard
> >
> > | for Lenny we'd like to stop supporting two freetype packages in the |
> > archive. In this case your package build-depends on freetype1-tools. | |
> > freetype1 has been in oldlibs for Etch, it has very few reverse deps |
> > left and we'll try to phase it out now. | | Please adapt your package, so
> > that it links against the regular freetype | package.
> >
> > This was filed on several DDP documents. As I checked the root cause, it
> > was traced to the recommendation of this package.
> >
> > Please apply patch and update your package.
>
> The patch won't help; CJK *really* needs these .sfd files. That is a
> "conditio sine qua non" to get extra fonts working with CJK.
If you say so, I trust it is true. But funny thing is those people who
is pushing FT2 transition did NMU with success. I see PS/PDF files OK.
(I do not know .sfd files... is this Spline Font Database? In what
process these are used? What happens without it?)
> As long as the .sfd files are not available in another package
> (texlive-* or whatever), and the ttf2* are not linked to FT2 (which will
> probably never happen), I'm inclined to still recommend FT1 for
> latex-cjk-common, and build-depend on it for latex-cjk-chinese-arphic.
> The reason it is only recommended for latex-cjk-common is that you will
> only need it if you want to build these fonts yourself. But perhaps a
> "Depends" is a better solution, because most people need it anyway.
>
> In fact, FT1 shouldn't be in oldlibs at all, IMHO. FT2 doesn't have
> some of the features of FT1 and isn't a replacement for these tools. It
> only looks like FT2 is an upgrade to FT1, but it isn't in some important
> aspects.
>
> You might try to convince Werner Lemberg and his colleagues to implement the
> ttf2* tools for FT2.
>
> So if you don't mind, I will downgrade the severity of this bug to
> "wishlist", and remove the "patch" tag.
Please from me.
> P.S.: as for DDP, I'm currently testing xCJK, which will be included in
> a next upload of latex-cjk-*, which has XeLaTeX support. It supports
> TTF directly, so you won't have any of these font problems anymore. I'm
> trying out several DFSG-free fonts now, to see which ones are good
> enough to recommend.
I have updated debiandoc-sgml to support UTF-8 as long as we get proper
LaTex header files for each languages. HTML and Plain text are fully
functional.
One thing I worry is ghostscript for CJK. Does it require presense of
CID font support data which is non-free?
Osamu
Reply to: