Bug#1026800: ITP: node-webfont -- Generate icon fonts from SVG icons
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Julian Gilbey X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, pkg-javascript-de...@lists.alioth.debian.org * Package name: node-webfont Version : 11.4.0 Upstream Contact: https://github.com/itgalaxy/webfont/issues * URL : https://github.com/itgalaxy/webfont * License : Expat Programming Lang: Javascript (Node.js) Description : Generate icon fonts from SVG icons Webfont converts sets of SVG files into an icon font, in any of the formats: woff2, woff, eot, ttf and svg. These can then be used in a browser. It has both a Node.js interface and a simple command-line interface (webfont). This package is needed to build a DFSG version of the Material Design Icons font (in the fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont package). It will be maintained within the Debian Javascript Maintainers team, with me taking the lead on it. The package will includes a number of Javascript dependencies that are not currently packaged; they will all be Provided by the package. They are as follows: * node-is-eot (= 1.0.0) * node-is-svg (= 4.3.2) * node-is-ttf (= 0.2.2) * node-is-woff (= 1.0.3) * node-is-woff2 (= 1.0.0) * node-neatequal (= 1.0.0) * node-svg-pathdata (= 6.0.3) * node-svgicons2svgfont (= 12.0.0) * node-ttf2eot (= 3.1.0) * node-ttf2woff (= 3.0.0) * node-varstream (= 0.3.2) * node-wawoff2 (= 2.0.1)
Re: SVG icons
Ron Johnson wrote: > > See RFC 2119. I think usages of may, should, must and stuff should > > follow these explanations. Note that RFC 2119 does not mention the phrase "may not". In American english it clearly means "is not permitted". For clarity in policy documents "must not" should be used when the intent is to state that something is not permitted. If the intent is to say that one has the choice of doing or not doing something structure the sentence so as to use "may" or "optional". Don't use "may not" to mean "you can leave this out if you want to". It might be best to not use it at all as it seems to engender some confusion. Note also that the RFC says the the imperatives it defines should be used sparingly. -- John Hasler
Re: SVG icons
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 11:55:41AM +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 11:49:49PM +0100, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > The authoritative document is the menu _manual_: > > (/usr/share/doc/menu/menu.txt.gz), section 3.7 > > > > An extract from that section: > > > > Debian package maintainers should ensure that any icons they include > > for use in the Debian menus conform to the following points: > > > > 1. The icons should be in xpm format. > > > > 2. The icons may not be larger than 32x32 pixels, although smaller > > sizes are ok. > > Note that's a "may" and a "should", not a "must". IIRC they only trigger > lintian warnings, not errors. Should I *really* upload a new menu manual with s/should/must ? Debian policy convention are that violating a should is a normal bug, violating a must is a serious bug: In the normative part of this manual, the words _must_, _should_ and _may_, and the adjectives _required_, _recommended_ and _optional_, are used to distinguish the significance of the various guidelines in this policy document. Packages that do not conform to the guidelines denoted by _must_ (or _required_) will generally not be considered acceptable for the Debian distribution. Non-conformance with guidelines denoted by _should_ (or _recommended_) will generally be considered a bug, but will not necessarily render a package unsuitable for distribution. Guidelines denoted by _may_ (or _optional_) are truly optional and adherence is left to the maintainer's discretion. These classifications are roughly equivalent to the bug severities _serious_ (for _must_ or _required_ directive violations), _minor_, _normal_ or _important_ (for _should_ or _recommended_ directive violations) and _wishlist_ (for _optional_ items). [2] Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here.
Re: SVG icons
On Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 12:56:23AM -0600, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > See RFC 2119. I think usages of may, should, must and stuff should > > follow these explanations. > > There's an RFC for words??? Yes, there is one, to make sure everybody use the words for the same thing, especially when people in a project doesn't share the same mother tongue. For instance, mine is french, and distinction between "may" and "should" is sometimes awkward to me. Mike
Re: SVG icons
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 15:49 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 09:16:06PM -0600, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Note that's a "may" and a "should", not a "must". IIRC they only trigger > > > lintian warnings, not errors. > > > > If I tell my son, "You may not go play in the rain.", he knows > > that he can't go play in the rain. > > > If you tell your som, "You must not go play in the rain", it's the best > way to be sure he'll be doing it ;) > The best way to be sure he'll *want* to do it. He knows the consequences of disobeying a direct order can be "unpleasant". > > Thus, "may" in this context is ambiguous. "Should" is only slightly > > less so. > > See RFC 2119. I think usages of may, should, must and stuff should > follow these explanations. There's an RFC for words??? -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. Clueless "tech" journalists drive geeks crazy signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: SVG icons
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 09:16:06PM -0600, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Note that's a "may" and a "should", not a "must". IIRC they only trigger > > lintian warnings, not errors. > > If I tell my son, "You may not go play in the rain.", he knows > that he can't go play in the rain. If you tell your som, "You must not go play in the rain", it's the best way to be sure he'll be doing it ;) > Thus, "may" in this context is ambiguous. "Should" is only slightly > less so. See RFC 2119. I think usages of may, should, must and stuff should follow these explanations. Mike
Re: SVG icons
On Thu, 2004-12-09 at 11:55 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 11:49:49PM +0100, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > The authoritative document is the menu _manual_: > > (/usr/share/doc/menu/menu.txt.gz), section 3.7 > > > > An extract from that section: > > > > Debian package maintainers should ensure that any icons they include > > for use in the Debian menus conform to the following points: > > > > 1. The icons should be in xpm format. > > > > 2. The icons may not be larger than 32x32 pixels, although smaller > > sizes are ok. > > Note that's a "may" and a "should", not a "must". IIRC they only trigger > lintian warnings, not errors. If I tell my son, "You may not go play in the rain.", he knows that he can't go play in the rain. Thus, "may" in this context is ambiguous. "Should" is only slightly less so. -- - Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: SVG icons
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 11:49:49PM +0100, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The authoritative document is the menu _manual_: > (/usr/share/doc/menu/menu.txt.gz), section 3.7 > > An extract from that section: > > Debian package maintainers should ensure that any icons they include > for use in the Debian menus conform to the following points: > > 1. The icons should be in xpm format. > > 2. The icons may not be larger than 32x32 pixels, although smaller > sizes are ok. Note that's a "may" and a "should", not a "must". IIRC they only trigger lintian warnings, not errors. Mike
Re: SVG icons
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 11:25:22AM -0500, James A. Treacy wrote: > On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 02:06:26PM +0100, Lo?c Minier wrote: > > > > It's defined in the _Menu_ Policy. I think the people maintaining the > > Debian menu system are best placed to tell what should be allowed or > > not. > > It is precisely because the menu policy does not say anything about > icons that I brought this up here. 'man menufile' states that an icon > can be specified but nothing else. The authoritative document is the menu _manual_: (/usr/share/doc/menu/menu.txt.gz), section 3.7 An extract from that section: Debian package maintainers should ensure that any icons they include for use in the Debian menus conform to the following points: 1. The icons should be in xpm format. 2. The icons may not be larger than 32x32 pixels, although smaller sizes are ok. > Note that svg icons work in a gnome environment. Because gramps is > a gnome program and upstream will only be distributing an svg icon > starting with the next major release, I may just stick with that. > There are usually other issues, though, so I was hoping some wisdom > could be found on debian-devel. If your icon is intended to be used with the Debian menu system, it needs to be in a format acceptable to all window-managers in Debian. Unfortunately that means XPM currently [until sarge release]. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here.
Re: SVG icons
On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 02:06:26PM +0100, Lo?c Minier wrote: > Eric Lavarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Wed, Dec 08, 2004: > > > To summarize, I think recommending SVG would require a change to the policy. > > It's defined in the _Menu_ Policy. I think the people maintaining the > Debian menu system are best placed to tell what should be allowed or > not. It is precisely because the menu policy does not say anything about icons that I brought this up here. 'man menufile' states that an icon can be specified but nothing else. Note that svg icons work in a gnome environment. Because gramps is a gnome program and upstream will only be distributing an svg icon starting with the next major release, I may just stick with that. There are usually other issues, though, so I was hoping some wisdom could be found on debian-devel. -- James (Jay) Treacy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SVG icons
Eric Lavarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Wed, Dec 08, 2004: > To summarize, I think recommending SVG would require a change to the policy. It's defined in the _Menu_ Policy. I think the people maintaining the Debian menu system are best placed to tell what should be allowed or not. Additionally, there are other menu systems parallel to the Debian menu system, and SVG use might be permitted by other systems, hence the OP should clarify his question. Regards, -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: SVG icons
Hi, isn't the actual underlying problem that the Debian Policy only accepts XPM icons (and lintian with it)? I don't know the background of this decision, but could imagine: - broad acceptance (aside from GNOME and KDE), PNG should be fine on this one, SVG not yet. - text oriented format: SVG OK, PNG not. - free: SVG and PNG OK. To summarize, I think recommending SVG would require a change to the policy. Cheers, Eric > Le mardi 07 décembre 2004 à 23:51 -0500, James A. Treacy a écrit : >> SVG use is increasing and I have seen nothing in Debian about how they >> should be handled. So, > > I don't think that's much different from PNG icons. > >> What is the proper way to handle svg icons? >> For example, where should they be placed? > > GNOME places them under /usr/share/icons/$THEME/scalable. > >> How well are they supported? > > Support is increasing; but at least all GTK+ stuff supports them, > including as toolbar icons, provided that librsvg2-common is installed. > >> Should a non-svg icon also be included? > > Not necessarily. > -- > .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ > : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] > `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom > -- Eric de France, d'Allemagne et de Navarre
Re: SVG icons
Le mardi 07 dÃcembre 2004 Ã 23:51 -0500, James A. Treacy a Ãcrit : > SVG use is increasing and I have seen nothing in Debian about how they > should be handled. So, I don't think that's much different from PNG icons. > What is the proper way to handle svg icons? > For example, where should they be placed? GNOME places them under /usr/share/icons/$THEME/scalable. > How well are they supported? Support is increasing; but at least all GTK+ stuff supports them, including as toolbar icons, provided that librsvg2-common is installed. > Should a non-svg icon also be included? Not necessarily. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
SVG icons
SVG use is increasing and I have seen nothing in Debian about how they should be handled. So, What is the proper way to handle svg icons? For example, where should they be placed? How well are they supported? Should a non-svg icon also be included? -- James (Jay) Treacy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
