Re: unifont - consensus on dependencies
Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 2008-06-22 10:02:15 -0700: If I must convert that to PCF it will add a dependency (on bdftopcf) that doesn't exist today. Must I never install the BDF font, but add a dependency for bdftopcf and only install a gzipped PCF version? Are you confusing Depends and Build-Depends? I'm not sure why installing PCF versions of fonts would require a Depends link; can the conversion not be done at package build time? A user who wants to use the PCF versions of the fonts wouldn't need bdftopcf, only someone who wanted to modify some glyphs and then rebuild the PCF files, right? I would tend to assume that Build-Depends: xfonts-utils is reasonable if BDF is used as an intermediary format. I see 93 packages (according to [apt-rdepends -r -f Build-Depends xfonts-utils]) that currently have that link, mostly also packages of fonts. The Debian Policy Manual does not list a directory under /usr/share/fonts/X11 for TrueType fonts. I plan to have the font be in the main/x11 Debian section, and so would like the TrueType version of the font installed under the X11 hierarchy. FWIW, various ttf-* packages that are also in the x11 section use the /usr/share/fonts/truetype directory for this; see for example ttf-bitstream-vera or ttf-freefont. 3) I'm using scripts originally written by Luis Gonzalez Miranda to convert unifont.hex files into TrueType using FontForge. Therefore I do intend to add a dependency on FontForge. There's no way around that dependency to produce the TrueType version. Again, an installed package Depends or only a Build-Depends? Is there any software still in common use that will not handle TrueType fonts? Apparently Debian no longer has support for any software that only supports BDF fonts instead of PCF fonts, so it wouldn't be considered experimental to remove a BDF font. Depending on how large the files are, I wonder whether a split package (from the same source package) with one package containing TrueType fonts and the other containing PCF fonts would be reasonable. Just a thought. --- Drake Wilson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: unifont - consensus on dependencies
On 22-Jun-08, 12:02 (CDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The updated package will have some new dependencies, and the Debian Policy Manual says that any package dependencies should be agreed upon by consensus on the debian-devel list before uploading .deb files. No, it says that any Pre-Depends must be agreed upon. Pre-Depends is a very specific, very strong relationship which can cause problems with the install system and can mostly be avoided, which is why you are encouraged to discuss them here and look for alternatives. Normal Depends and such can be determined by the maintainer; if there's a problem, well, that's what the BTS is for. That said, you can still ask questions about your packaging choices here; that's one of the purposes of d-devel, after all. Steve -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: unifont - consensus on dependencies
Drake, I didn't specify...yes, all of these dependencies are only for Build-Depends. Is it best to add Build-Depends: xfonts-utils even if all a package needs from xfont-utils is bdftopcf? I am aware of the /usr/share/fonts/truetype directory. I've been running Sarge, and it is there. However, that is not under the X11 fonts tree. If I place a font in /usr/share/fonts/truetype, is it still legitimate to claim a font as being in section main/x11? If not, what is the preferred section? The Debian Policy Manual, Chapter 11, doesn't mention TrueType font policy. I could conceivably create multiple packages, for example: - the TrueType font (most people will probably just want this and nothing else); this could be called unifont-ttf - All sources to build the unifont.hex, TrueType, PCF, and BDF versions of the font; this package could be called unifont The TrueType font is larger than anything else: approximately 16 Megabytes uncompressed. That doesn't include an SBIT table, which I might add in the future. I might work on the outline encoding in the future to reduce that size. The TrueType font is 3 Mbytes compressed. The entire source tree is about 15 Megabytes uncompressed, and less than 3 Megabytes compressed. I could have the unifont package contain the pre-built TrueType font plus all sources. It takes about an hour plus 1 Gigabyte of virtual memory to build the TrueType version with FontForge. I could even forego the PCF font, which has never existed for the GNU Unifont, unless there is an application that still must use PCF. In that case there wouldn't be a Build-Depends for bdftopcf. I put work into getting the combining characters working properly (with zero width) in the TrueType version. The BDF version doesn't have that capability, and so neither would a PCF version. Paul Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key ID: E6E6E390 Original Message Subject: Re: unifont - consensus on dependencies From: Drake Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, June 22, 2008 10:44 am To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 2008-06-22 10:02:15 -0700: If I must convert that to PCF it will add a dependency (on bdftopcf) that doesn't exist today. Must I never install the BDF font, but add a dependency for bdftopcf and only install a gzipped PCF version? Are you confusing Depends and Build-Depends? I would tend to assume that Build-Depends: xfonts-utils is reasonable if BDF is used as an intermediary format. I see 93 packages (according to [apt-rdepends -r -f Build-Depends xfonts-utils]) that currently have that link, mostly also packages of fonts. The Debian Policy Manual does not list a directory under /usr/share/fonts/X11 for TrueType fonts. I plan to have the font be in the main/x11 Debian section, and so would like the TrueType version of the font installed under the X11 hierarchy. FWIW, various ttf-* packages that are also in the x11 section use the /usr/share/fonts/truetype directory for this; see for example ttf-bitstream-vera or ttf-freefont. 3) I'm using scripts originally written by Luis Gonzalez Miranda to convert unifont.hex files into TrueType using FontForge. Therefore I do intend to add a dependency on FontForge. There's no way around that dependency to produce the TrueType version. Again, an installed package Depends or only a Build-Depends? Is there any software still in common use that will not handle TrueType fonts? Apparently Debian no longer has support for any software that only supports BDF fonts instead of PCF fonts, so it wouldn't be considered experimental to remove a BDF font. Depending on how large the files are, I wonder whether a split package (from the same source package) with one package containing TrueType fonts and the other containing PCF fonts would be reasonable. Just a thought. --- Drake Wilson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: unifont - consensus on dependencies
Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 2008-06-22 12:04:53 -0700: Is it best to add Build-Depends: xfonts-utils even if all a package needs from xfont-utils is bdftopcf? If you need bdftopcf to build, and bdftopcf is in xfonts-utils, I don't see another way to do it than Build-Depending on xfonts-utils unless you want to look for alternative tools or something. I am aware of the /usr/share/fonts/truetype directory. I've been running Sarge, and it is there. However, that is not under the X11 fonts tree. If I place a font in /usr/share/fonts/truetype, is it still legitimate to claim a font as being in section main/x11? If not, then there's a big pile of ttf-* packages in sid that have incorrect packaging. Since the Policy Manual is silent on this, I'd expect that to be the correct place to install TrueType fonts from a package in the x11 section, though I can't find authoritative documentation to that effect from a cursory search. I could conceivably create multiple packages, for example: - the TrueType font (most people will probably just want this and nothing else); this could be called unifont-ttf - All sources to build the unifont.hex, TrueType, PCF, and BDF versions of the font; this package could be called unifont De facto practice in the archive suggests that the TrueType package be called ttf-unifont, the PCF-only package be called xfonts-unifont, and the source package be called unifont (noting that the source package and built package namespaces are somewhat orthogonal to each other). I could have the unifont package contain the pre-built TrueType font plus all sources. It takes about an hour plus 1 Gigabyte of virtual memory to build the TrueType version with FontForge. Normally you don't provide sources in built packages unless there's a specific reason for it, as far as I know. Users can get sources using [apt-get source] or similar to retrieve the source packages. I'm not sure what effect a highly-intensive build process like that has on the autobuilder network; presumably that can be answered by someone more knowledgeable than me, but it's something you'd want to consider. In that case there wouldn't be a Build-Depends for bdftopcf. (Note that there is no way to Build-Depend on bdftopcf, because that's not a package nor a Provides that I see anywhere. You once again mean xfonts-utils, I suppose.) I put work into getting the combining characters working properly (with zero width) in the TrueType version. The BDF version doesn't have that capability, and so neither would a PCF version. That would be useful information for the package descriptions; that doesn't preclude packaging both versions. I would tend to default to packaging both versions, assuming they come from the same source, unless there's a good reason not to package the PCF version. How large are the PCF files? (I didn't see that information in your last message; if it was there, I apologize.) Is there a significant difference in the _source_ size if you reduce it to only the information needed to build the TrueType fonts, or is most of the information shared? I would tend to imagine the latter for a package of this nature. Paul Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key ID: E6E6E390 --- Drake Wilson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: unifont - consensus on dependencies
Drake, Okay, I'll plan on ttf-unifont, xfonts-unifont, and unifont package names. The xfonts-unifont package will contain a PCF font, but not a BDF font (since BDF fonts now seem forbidden according to the latest Policy Manual). The source package won't contain a pre-built TrueType font or a pre-built PCF font. I'll be replacing Sarge with the latest stable Etch release to build the final Debian packages. I think it is fitting to build a font package under a release named after Etch-a-Sketch. :-) I haven't built the PCF version yet; I've just been using the BDF version for testing (and the TrueType version for daily use). Since PCF is binary whereas BDF is ASCII, and since Debian PCF fonts are gzipped, I would expect a gzipped PCF font to be about the same size or a little smaller than a gzipped BDF font. The gzipped BDF font is about 1.3 Megabytes. The uncompressed BDF font is about 10 Megabytes. Yes, the vast bulk of the source package is shared to produce the BDF and TrueType fonts. There is just one 854 byte script to convert the unifont.hex formatted sources files into BDF, plus lines in a Makefile to invoke that script and then convert with bdftopcf -- not worth splitting the source. The Debian Policy Manual does need to add policy on TrueType fonts. TrueType and its derivatives (such as SIL's Graphite) are the foreseeable future direction in font technology, especially for complex scripts. Thanks for your insights. Paul Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key ID: E6E6E390 Original Message Subject: Re: unifont - consensus on dependencies From: Drake Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, June 22, 2008 1:21 pm To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Cc: Anthony Fok [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am aware of the /usr/share/fonts/truetype directory. I've been running Sarge, and it is there. However, that is not under the X11 fonts tree. If I place a font in /usr/share/fonts/truetype, is it still legitimate to claim a font as being in section main/x11? If not, then there's a big pile of ttf-* packages in sid that have incorrect packaging. Since the Policy Manual is silent on this, I'd expect that to be the correct place to install TrueType fonts from a package in the x11 section, though I can't find authoritative documentation to that effect from a cursory search. De facto practice in the archive suggests that the TrueType package be called ttf-unifont, the PCF-only package be called xfonts-unifont, and the source package be called unifont (noting that the source package and built package namespaces are somewhat orthogonal to each other). I could have the unifont package contain the pre-built TrueType font plus all sources. It takes about an hour plus 1 Gigabyte of virtual memory to build the TrueType version with FontForge. Normally you don't provide sources in built packages unless there's a specific reason for it, as far as I know. Users can get sources using [apt-get source] or similar to retrieve the source packages. I'm not sure what effect a highly-intensive build process like that has on the autobuilder network; presumably that can be answered by someone more knowledgeable than me, but it's something you'd want to consider. I put work into getting the combining characters working properly (with zero width) in the TrueType version. The BDF version doesn't have that capability, and so neither would a PCF version. That would be useful information for the package descriptions; that doesn't preclude packaging both versions. I would tend to default to packaging both versions, assuming they come from the same source, unless there's a good reason not to package the PCF version. How large are the PCF files? (I didn't see that information in your last message; if it was there, I apologize.) Is there a significant difference in the _source_ size if you reduce it to only the information needed to build the TrueType fonts, or is most of the information shared? I would tend to imagine the latter for a package of this nature. --- Drake Wilson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
