Bug#899124: fa-solid-900.ttf symlinked as fontawesome-webfont.ttf
Alexis Murzeau writes: > Hi, > > Le 27/06/2018 à 00:21, Alexis Murzeau a écrit : >> Le 26/06/2018 à 04:13, vasudev-debian a écrit : >>> I'll have a look. if possible clone from team repo and raise a pr on it. >>> >> >> I've created 3 PR at [0], one for each branch (in this order: upstream, >> pristine-tar and master). >> The 5.0.10+really4.7.0~dfsg orig tar I imported is the same as the one >> used for 4.7.0~dfsg. >> Debian/watch file tracks the v4 branch (ignoring v5.*) >> I've also added a autopkgtest test to ensure symlinks are not broken. >> >> [0] https://salsa.debian.org/fonts-team/fonts-font-awesome/merge_requests >> >> Le 26/06/2018 à 09:26, Sean Whitton a écrit : >>> >>> The git history is up to you but resetting the changelog seems like a >>> really bad idea -- it is confusing to see that there are uploads to the >>> archive that are not present in the changelog. >>> >>> I think you should at least retain d/changelog, even if you reset >>> everything else (personally, I would keep all the git history). >>> >> >> I finally kept the full changelog and git history, to not lie the past >> :) if someone wonders what happened. >> Thanks for your advices. >> > > Vasudev, did you get a chance to take a look to the merge requests [0] ? > > [0] https://salsa.debian.org/fonts-team/fonts-font-awesome/merge_requests I've merged and I think Praveen uploaded new version to archive. Hope this resolves everything. Alexis thanks a lot for this update Cheers, Vasudev
Bug#899124: fa-solid-900.ttf symlinked as fontawesome-webfont.ttf
Hi, Le 27/06/2018 à 00:21, Alexis Murzeau a écrit : > Le 26/06/2018 à 04:13, vasudev-debian a écrit : >> I'll have a look. if possible clone from team repo and raise a pr on it. >> > > I've created 3 PR at [0], one for each branch (in this order: upstream, > pristine-tar and master). > The 5.0.10+really4.7.0~dfsg orig tar I imported is the same as the one > used for 4.7.0~dfsg. > Debian/watch file tracks the v4 branch (ignoring v5.*) > I've also added a autopkgtest test to ensure symlinks are not broken. > > [0] https://salsa.debian.org/fonts-team/fonts-font-awesome/merge_requests > > Le 26/06/2018 à 09:26, Sean Whitton a écrit : >> >> The git history is up to you but resetting the changelog seems like a >> really bad idea -- it is confusing to see that there are uploads to the >> archive that are not present in the changelog. >> >> I think you should at least retain d/changelog, even if you reset >> everything else (personally, I would keep all the git history). >> > > I finally kept the full changelog and git history, to not lie the past > :) if someone wonders what happened. > Thanks for your advices. > Vasudev, did you get a chance to take a look to the merge requests [0] ? [0] https://salsa.debian.org/fonts-team/fonts-font-awesome/merge_requests -- Alexis Murzeau PGP: B7E6 0EBB 9293 7B06 BDBC 2787 E7BD 1904 F480 937F signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#899124: fa-solid-900.ttf symlinked as fontawesome-webfont.ttf
Le 26/06/2018 à 04:13, vasudev-debian a écrit : > I'll have a look. if possible clone from team repo and raise a pr on it. > I've created 3 PR at [0], one for each branch (in this order: upstream, pristine-tar and master). The 5.0.10+really4.7.0~dfsg orig tar I imported is the same as the one used for 4.7.0~dfsg. Debian/watch file tracks the v4 branch (ignoring v5.*) I've also added a autopkgtest test to ensure symlinks are not broken. [0] https://salsa.debian.org/fonts-team/fonts-font-awesome/merge_requests Le 26/06/2018 à 09:26, Sean Whitton a écrit : > > The git history is up to you but resetting the changelog seems like a > really bad idea -- it is confusing to see that there are uploads to the > archive that are not present in the changelog. > > I think you should at least retain d/changelog, even if you reset > everything else (personally, I would keep all the git history). > I finally kept the full changelog and git history, to not lie the past :) if someone wonders what happened. Thanks for your advices. -- Alexis Murzeau PGP: B7E6 0EBB 9293 7B06 BDBC 2787 E7BD 1904 F480 937F signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#899124: fa-solid-900.ttf symlinked as fontawesome-webfont.ttf
Hello Alexis, On Tue, Jun 26 2018, Alexis Murzeau wrote: > I've updated my personal repo [0] to use the version > 5.0.10+really4.7.0~dfsg-1. I've reset the changelog and everything to > debian/4.7.0~dfsg-3 tag and then cherry-picking relevant commits in > 5.0.10-x: > * Change maintainer email address to debian-fonts@l.d.o. > * Drop Friendica Maintainers team from uploaders list. > * Mark package compliance with Debian policy 4.1.4. > * Use salsa URL in Vcs-* fields. > > And then update the package version and watch file. I've branched out > from the debian/4.7.0_dfsg-3 tag but that's a non forward master > branch move. I'm not sure how to handle this here, but v5 related > change don't seems relevant for the v4 package to me as everything is > just reverted. The git history is up to you but resetting the changelog seems like a really bad idea -- it is confusing to see that there are uploads to the archive that are not present in the changelog. I think you should at least retain d/changelog, even if you reset everything else (personally, I would keep all the git history). -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#899124: fa-solid-900.ttf symlinked as fontawesome-webfont.ttf
Le 25/06/2018 à 13:21, Alexis Murzeau a écrit : > On June 25, 2018 12:44:47 PM GMT+02:00, Sean Whitton > wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Sun, Jun 24 2018, Alexis Murzeau wrote: >> >>> So this would mean: >>> - revert the fonts-font-awesome package in unstable to 4.7.0~dfsg-3 >> >> Just to not that due to a change the next release of Debian Policy this >> should /not/ be done by means of an epoch. You should use the +really >> convention. > > Ok but then all future versions of fonts-font-awesome v4 will require +really > as the v5 will be in a different package. > I'm ok with +really though as there should not have many future version > anyway. > > Thanks for your advice :) > I've updated my personal repo [0] to use the version 5.0.10+really4.7.0~dfsg-1. I've reset the changelog and everything to debian/4.7.0~dfsg-3 tag and then cherry-picking relevant commits in 5.0.10-x: * Change maintainer email address to debian-fonts@l.d.o. * Drop Friendica Maintainers team from uploaders list. * Mark package compliance with Debian policy 4.1.4. * Use salsa URL in Vcs-* fields. And then update the package version and watch file. I've branched out from the debian/4.7.0_dfsg-3 tag but that's a non forward master branch move. I'm not sure how to handle this here, but v5 related change don't seems relevant for the v4 package to me as everything is just reverted. [0] https://salsa.debian.org/amurzeau-guest/fonts-font-awesome-4 -- Alexis Murzeau PGP: B7E6 0EBB 9293 7B06 BDBC 2787 E7BD 1904 F480 937F signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#899124: fa-solid-900.ttf symlinked as fontawesome-webfont.ttf
On June 25, 2018 12:44:47 PM GMT+02:00, Sean Whitton wrote: >Hello, > >On Sun, Jun 24 2018, Alexis Murzeau wrote: > >> So this would mean: >> - revert the fonts-font-awesome package in unstable to 4.7.0~dfsg-3 > >Just to not that due to a change the next release of Debian Policy this >should /not/ be done by means of an epoch. You should use the +really >convention. Ok but then all future versions of fonts-font-awesome v4 will require +really as the v5 will be in a different package. I'm ok with +really though as there should not have many future version anyway. Thanks for your advice :) > >Thanks! Hi -- Alexis Murzeau
Bug#899124: fa-solid-900.ttf symlinked as fontawesome-webfont.ttf
Hello, On Sun, Jun 24 2018, Alexis Murzeau wrote: > So this would mean: > - revert the fonts-font-awesome package in unstable to 4.7.0~dfsg-3 Just to not that due to a change the next release of Debian Policy this should /not/ be done by means of an epoch. You should use the +really convention. Thanks! -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#899124: fa-solid-900.ttf symlinked as fontawesome-webfont.ttf
Hi, Le 23/06/2018 à 08:11, Vasudev Kamath a écrit : > Hi Alexis, Thomas, > > First of all I apologise for not replying in time. I'm bit occupied by > family work so not getting enough time to deal with package. That's fine no worries :) I actually asked you directly because I don't want changes to happen on your package without your consent or even be unaware of it, that would be bad. > > Alexis Murzeau writes: > >>> >>> I also would like to highlight that what you're describing here is the >>> workflow of a transition, which is what Debian has been doing for >>> *years*. Not only this is natural in Debian, but it is also very much >>> recommended when breakage occurs. >>> >>> I'm by the way a bit frustrated that this process is taking so long. >>> This has a huge impact in the maintenance of a big dozen of my packages, >>> since Horizon can't be installed. Reverting is really not a lot of work. >>> Can we get this done soon, as it seems to be the consensus? If the >>> current font-awesome maintainer is busy, maybe someone else (me?) can do >>> the work? > > Yes I agree that I should have followed usual transition process but I > did not imagine a font package breaking things in this manner. Of course > its not an excuse but I should have been careful, but what is done is > done now. > >> >> @Vasudev, what do you think about this ? >> >> (As far as I'm concerned, I'm ok with this and Thomas said it shouldn't >> be a lot of work to do.) > > I've created basic package at ¹. If you or Thomas can adjust the package > as needed and upload it to archive it would be great. Also please > consider adding yourself as uploader as I might not have energy to > maintain additional package. > > ¹ https://salsa.debian.org/fonts-team/fonts-font-awesomev4 Thanks. I think I can help maintaining these packages (v4 and v5) as streamlink uses them but I'm not a DM (nor a DD). I think the best is to keep the old source and binary package name fonts-font-awesome for the old version (v4) and use a new one fonts-font-awesome-5 for the new version. So following best practice [0] for what would be a "backward incompatible ABI change which prevents old programs from working with the new library" for a library. So changing the font path to include "-5" and the package name accordingly. So this would mean: - revert the fonts-font-awesome package in unstable to 4.7.0~dfsg-3 - either: - Clone fonts-font-awesome to fonts-font-awesomev4 then reverting all branches and tags to v4.7.0~dfsg-3 in fonts-font-awesomev4 - Or clone fonts-font-awesome to another repository fonts-font-awesome-5 (to match the source package name) and reset branches and tags in the fonts-font-awesome repository to v4.7.0~dfsg-3. My personal thought on repository naming is that its better to have fonts-font-awesome (4.7.0~dfsg-3) and fonts-font-awesome-5 (5.0.10-4) to match source package names. The debian/watch file for fonts-font-awesome (v4) then need to change to ".*/v(4\.\d.*)"[...] to stick with v4. I've made change in forks at [1] and [2]. Also, I think some changes can be reverted to remove support of v4 in v5 package. Possibly, reopen bugs that were closed since fonts-font-awesome v5 and reassign newer ones applying to v5 to the new package fonts-font-awesome-5. As a side node, I see that font awesome 5 upstream git is in fact the build result, not the sources (see [4]). But its still free, using CC BY 4.0 for icons, SIL OFL 1.1 for fonts and MIT for anything else (see [3]). The DFSG requires to have the source code. Does this mean fonts-font-awesome-5 cannot be handled the same way as before, ie outside of main ? Not sure as this is not strictly compiled-only and there are scss, less and non minified js files. [0] https://wiki.debian.org/TransitionBestPractices [1] https://salsa.debian.org/amurzeau-guest/fonts-font-awesome-4 [2] https://salsa.debian.org/amurzeau-guest/fonts-font-awesome-5 [3] https://fontawesome.com/license [4] https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/issues/12199#issuecomment-363168281 -- Alexis Murzeau PGP: B7E6 0EBB 9293 7B06 BDBC 2787 E7BD 1904 F480 937F signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#899124: fa-solid-900.ttf symlinked as fontawesome-webfont.ttf
Hi Alexis, Thomas, First of all I apologise for not replying in time. I'm bit occupied by family work so not getting enough time to deal with package. Alexis Murzeau writes: >> >> I also would like to highlight that what you're describing here is the >> workflow of a transition, which is what Debian has been doing for >> *years*. Not only this is natural in Debian, but it is also very much >> recommended when breakage occurs. >> >> I'm by the way a bit frustrated that this process is taking so long. >> This has a huge impact in the maintenance of a big dozen of my packages, >> since Horizon can't be installed. Reverting is really not a lot of work. >> Can we get this done soon, as it seems to be the consensus? If the >> current font-awesome maintainer is busy, maybe someone else (me?) can do >> the work? Yes I agree that I should have followed usual transition process but I did not imagine a font package breaking things in this manner. Of course its not an excuse but I should have been careful, but what is done is done now. > > @Vasudev, what do you think about this ? > > (As far as I'm concerned, I'm ok with this and Thomas said it shouldn't > be a lot of work to do.) I've created basic package at ¹. If you or Thomas can adjust the package as needed and upload it to archive it would be great. Also please consider adding yourself as uploader as I might not have energy to maintain additional package. ¹ https://salsa.debian.org/fonts-team/fonts-font-awesomev4 Thanks and Regards, Vasudev. --
Bug#899124: fa-solid-900.ttf symlinked as fontawesome-webfont.ttf
Hi, Le 17/06/2018 à 09:31, Thomas Goirand a écrit : > On 06/16/2018 03:57 PM, Alexis Murzeau wrote: >> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 13:31:48 +0100 Sean Whitton >> wrote: >>> Hello Vasudev, >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 05:16:05PM +0530, Vasudev Kamath wrote: I read through and prepared a version to experimental which symlinks fa-solid-900.ttf as fontawesome-webfont.ttf. I've uploaded it to experimental, can you please check if this helps?. @Others Please let me know if this new version in experimental with suggestion from Thomas improves situation in your cases. >>> >>> This does not help the mkdocs-bootstrap case. That appears to need the >>> .woff2 font. >>> >>> -- >>> Sean Whitton >> >> Hi, >> >> This and openstack-dashboard install failure require more symlinks and >> files from v4. >> >> Isn't reverting the package to v4 while creating a new one for the >> version 5 (say fonts-font-awesome-5) better to handle all these v4/5 >> breaks ? > > I agree, also because even with the symlinks, there would be still 4 > missing glyphs in the openstack-dashboard (I tried and survey it). > Though, I could probably find replacements in fa-solid-900, it'd be > nicer to just not break things. > >> I'm not sure it is a good solution trying to patch fonts-font-awesome v5 >> to be compatible with v4 while upstream might continue to even more >> break things with v4 later. >> >> Subsequent maintenance on the v4 package should not require much work as >> upstream says they don't plan any further versions on the v4 branch [1]: > > I agree. > >> So this v4 package would be dropped once other packages move to >> fonts-font-awesome-5 with proper upgrade path (ie. without hacks to fake >> v4 with v5). Especially packages that use sphinx RTD theme where >> upstream still use v4 and it seems many packages actually have a >> theme.css based on that theme. >> >> I myself tried to patch theme.css to use fonts-font-awesome 5 shim but >> its a ugly big approximate patch that happen to mostly work :( [2] >> >> What do you think about this ? > > I also would like to highlight that what you're describing here is the > workflow of a transition, which is what Debian has been doing for > *years*. Not only this is natural in Debian, but it is also very much > recommended when breakage occurs. > > I'm by the way a bit frustrated that this process is taking so long. > This has a huge impact in the maintenance of a big dozen of my packages, > since Horizon can't be installed. Reverting is really not a lot of work. > Can we get this done soon, as it seems to be the consensus? If the > current font-awesome maintainer is busy, maybe someone else (me?) can do > the work? @Vasudev, what do you think about this ? (As far as I'm concerned, I'm ok with this and Thomas said it shouldn't be a lot of work to do.) > > Cheers, > > Thomas Goirand (zigo) > -- Alexis Murzeau PGP: B7E6 0EBB 9293 7B06 BDBC 2787 E7BD 1904 F480 937F signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#899124: fa-solid-900.ttf symlinked as fontawesome-webfont.ttf
On 06/16/2018 03:57 PM, Alexis Murzeau wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 13:31:48 +0100 Sean Whitton > wrote: >> Hello Vasudev, >> >> On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 05:16:05PM +0530, Vasudev Kamath wrote: >>> >>> I read through and prepared a version to experimental which symlinks >>> fa-solid-900.ttf as fontawesome-webfont.ttf. I've uploaded it to >>> experimental, can you please check if this helps?. >>> >>> @Others Please let me know if this new version in experimental with >>> suggestion from Thomas improves situation in your cases. >> >> This does not help the mkdocs-bootstrap case. That appears to need the >> .woff2 font. >> >> -- >> Sean Whitton > > Hi, > > This and openstack-dashboard install failure require more symlinks and > files from v4. > > Isn't reverting the package to v4 while creating a new one for the > version 5 (say fonts-font-awesome-5) better to handle all these v4/5 > breaks ? I agree, also because even with the symlinks, there would be still 4 missing glyphs in the openstack-dashboard (I tried and survey it). Though, I could probably find replacements in fa-solid-900, it'd be nicer to just not break things. > I'm not sure it is a good solution trying to patch fonts-font-awesome v5 > to be compatible with v4 while upstream might continue to even more > break things with v4 later. > > Subsequent maintenance on the v4 package should not require much work as > upstream says they don't plan any further versions on the v4 branch [1]: I agree. > So this v4 package would be dropped once other packages move to > fonts-font-awesome-5 with proper upgrade path (ie. without hacks to fake > v4 with v5). Especially packages that use sphinx RTD theme where > upstream still use v4 and it seems many packages actually have a > theme.css based on that theme. > > I myself tried to patch theme.css to use fonts-font-awesome 5 shim but > its a ugly big approximate patch that happen to mostly work :( [2] > > What do you think about this ? I also would like to highlight that what you're describing here is the workflow of a transition, which is what Debian has been doing for *years*. Not only this is natural in Debian, but it is also very much recommended when breakage occurs. I'm by the way a bit frustrated that this process is taking so long. This has a huge impact in the maintenance of a big dozen of my packages, since Horizon can't be installed. Reverting is really not a lot of work. Can we get this done soon, as it seems to be the consensus? If the current font-awesome maintainer is busy, maybe someone else (me?) can do the work? Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Bug#899124: fa-solid-900.ttf symlinked as fontawesome-webfont.ttf
On Tue, 5 Jun 2018 13:31:48 +0100 Sean Whitton wrote: > Hello Vasudev, > > On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 05:16:05PM +0530, Vasudev Kamath wrote: > > > > I read through and prepared a version to experimental which symlinks > > fa-solid-900.ttf as fontawesome-webfont.ttf. I've uploaded it to > > experimental, can you please check if this helps?. > > > > @Others Please let me know if this new version in experimental with > > suggestion from Thomas improves situation in your cases. > > This does not help the mkdocs-bootstrap case. That appears to need the > .woff2 font. > > -- > Sean Whitton Hi, This and openstack-dashboard install failure require more symlinks and files from v4. Isn't reverting the package to v4 while creating a new one for the version 5 (say fonts-font-awesome-5) better to handle all these v4/5 breaks ? I'm not sure it is a good solution trying to patch fonts-font-awesome v5 to be compatible with v4 while upstream might continue to even more break things with v4 later. Subsequent maintenance on the v4 package should not require much work as upstream says they don't plan any further versions on the v4 branch [1]: `Now that Font Awesome 5 has been released we are marking version 4 as end-of-life. We don't plan on releasing any further versions of the 4.x or 3.x.` So this v4 package would be dropped once other packages move to fonts-font-awesome-5 with proper upgrade path (ie. without hacks to fake v4 with v5). Especially packages that use sphinx RTD theme where upstream still use v4 and it seems many packages actually have a theme.css based on that theme. I myself tried to patch theme.css to use fonts-font-awesome 5 shim but its a ugly big approximate patch that happen to mostly work :( [2] What do you think about this ? [1] https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome#where-did-font-awesome-4-or-3-go [2] https://github.com/amurzeau/streamlink-debian/blob/master/debian/patches/0006-Use-font-awesome-5-shim.patch -- Alexis Murzeau PGP: B7E6 0EBB 9293 7B06 BDBC 2787 E7BD 1904 F480 937F signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#899124: fa-solid-900.ttf symlinked as fontawesome-webfont.ttf
Hello Vasudev, On Sat, Jun 02, 2018 at 05:16:05PM +0530, Vasudev Kamath wrote: > > I read through and prepared a version to experimental which symlinks > fa-solid-900.ttf as fontawesome-webfont.ttf. I've uploaded it to > experimental, can you please check if this helps?. > > @Others Please let me know if this new version in experimental with > suggestion from Thomas improves situation in your cases. This does not help the mkdocs-bootstrap case. That appears to need the .woff2 font. -- Sean Whitton signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#899124: fa-solid-900.ttf symlinked as fontawesome-webfont.ttf
On 06/02/2018 01:46 PM, Vasudev Kamath wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > I read through and prepared a version to experimental which symlinks > fa-solid-900.ttf as fontawesome-webfont.ttf. I've uploaded it to > experimental, can you please check if this helps?. > > @Others Please let me know if this new version in experimental with > suggestion from Thomas improves situation in your cases. > > If it improves then I will move this change to unstable. > > Cheers, > > Vasudev Hi, Thanks a lot for trying to fix things. However, it's still broken. In debian Sid, just try to do: apt-get install openstack-dashboard The result is: Found 'compress' tags in: /usr/share/openstack-dashboard/openstack_dashboard/templates/horizon/_conf.html /usr/share/openstack-dashboard/openstack_dashboard/templates/_stylesheets.html /usr/share/openstack-dashboard/openstack_dashboard/templates/horizon/_scripts.html /usr/share/openstack-dashboard/openstack_dashboard/templates/serial_console.html CommandError: An error occurred during rendering /usr/share/openstack-dashboard/openstack_dashboard/templates/_stylesheets.html: Couldn't find anything to import: /horizon/lib/font_awesome/scss/font-awesome.scss Extensions: , , Search path: on line 6 of dashboard/scss/horizon.scss imported from line 1 of 'string:0c838b58954113a8:\n// My Themes\n@import "/themes/default/variables";\n\n// Horizon\n@import "/dashboard/scss/horizon.' Until this works, then it's still broken for me. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Bug#899124: fa-solid-900.ttf symlinked as fontawesome-webfont.ttf
Hi Thomas, I read through and prepared a version to experimental which symlinks fa-solid-900.ttf as fontawesome-webfont.ttf. I've uploaded it to experimental, can you please check if this helps?. @Others Please let me know if this new version in experimental with suggestion from Thomas improves situation in your cases. If it improves then I will move this change to unstable. Cheers, Vasudev --
