Re: Unifont Freeze Exception Request
Niels, On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 10:51 PM Niels Thykier wrote: > > Paul Hardy: > > Dear Release Team, > > > > Unicode, Inc. expects to release Unicode Standard version 12.0.0 on or > > shortly after 5 March 2019[1]. Would you consider allowing a freeze > > exception for a unifont 12.0.01-1 package, to be uploaded by the day > > after Unicode 12.0.0 is released? > > > > Please CC me, as I am not subscribed to this list. > > ... > > [1]http://unicode.org/versions/Unicode12.0.0/ > > > > Hi Paul, > > Thanks for your email. > > Could I have you file an unblock request/bug against release.debian.org > with the full source debdiff (when unifont 12.0.01 is released)? We > will evaluate your request at that time when we have seen the diff. A freeze exception may no longer be appropriate. I was just about to send a follow-up email on Tuesday morning when I received your email. This past weekend, having not heard back from the Release Team, I added two programs to the upcoming Unifont package. They both solved immediate needs that I ran into preparing for the new Unifont release. I wrote one and someone just happened to contribute the other one, both created this weekend, both unanticipated before then. I thought about removing those additions today, but would rather get a Unifont package with the two new programs into unstable rather than wait for the Release Team to evaluate a version without those new programs before I could provide a debianized package with them (I am sure you have far higher priority packages to review first). If the Release Team concludes that the changes are too much for buster, at least in the meantime the new version would propagate to Ubuntu and other distros that sync from unstable. Take care, Paul Hardy
Unifont Freeze Exception Request
Dear Release Team,
Unicode, Inc. expects to release Unicode Standard version 12.0.0 on or
shortly after 5 March 2019[1]. Would you consider allowing a freeze
exception for a unifont 12.0.01-1 package, to be uploaded by the day
after Unicode 12.0.0 is released?
Please CC me, as I am not subscribed to this list.
TL;DR
This is what I expect to change:
* Add new glyphs introduced in Unicode 12.0.0
* Replace "sed -i" with "sed -e" in the font/Makefile "bmp" target for
portability
* Possibly add new glyph ranges (Unicode "scripts") to src/unibmp2hex.c.
I consider these changes to be low-risk.
I have been drawing Unifont glyphs since 2007, so I think I have the
hang of doing it correctly. :-) I also will be adding contributions
from others, and will make a final check of every new glyph.
The "bmp" font/Makefile target is only invoked manually, if someone
wants Microsoft Bitmap Graphics (".bmp") files for editing. So
modifying that target will not affect the Debian build. I will test
the "bmp" font/Makefile target change and any changes to
src/unibmp2hex.c before the upload.
Thank you,
Paul Hardy
[1]http://unicode.org/versions/Unicode12.0.0/
Please Allow unifont/1:7.0.06-1 (Unstable) to Migrate to Testing
Dear Release Team, I am the maintainer of GNU Unifont, both upstream (http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/unifont) and on Debian. You've asked that people not email you unblocking requests unless necessary. In this case, a release of Unifont that I packaged on 24 October (unifont/1:7.0.06-1) shows an override problem that might prevent its automatic migration into Testing (https://qa.debian.org/debcheck.php?dist=unstablepackage=unifont). I request that you let unifont/1:7.0.06-1 migrate in spite of that, with the understanding that I will sort the issue out with the FTP Masters in the near future. I filed an override bug for the FTP Masters on 24 October to change the priority of unifont-bin, but have gotten no reply from them (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=766699). The version of Unifont in Testing (unifont/1:7.0.03-1) is not suitable for Jessie because it uses liggd-gd2-noxpm-perl, which was removed from Testing this summer. That library is now replaced by libgd-perl. I only learned of that when I packaged unifont/1:7.0.05-1 on 19 October. Because libgd-perl has priority extra, I changed the priority of unifont-bin from optional to extra to conform to Section 2.5 of the Policy Manual. unifont-bin contains programs to modify Unifont and to rebuild it from source files. Fewer than 200 systems report having it installed on popcon (https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=unifont); most users just want to use the resulting fonts. If you allow the Unstable version of Unifont to migrate to Testing in two days (when it is 10 days old), the version in Testing will be replaced and that problem will take care of itself. The only other alternatives I can see if unifont-bin must remain with priority optional are changing the priority of ligd-perl from extra to optional, or stripping Unifont of its Perl scripts that manipulate PNG images. I can do the latter if you want, but I think it would be a shame to cripple the Debian version of Unifont by removing its ability to handle PNG images. Apart from having complete coverage of the Unicode 7.0 Basic Multilingual Plane, Unifont 7.0.x adds 25 Supplemental Multilingual Plane (Unicode Plane 1) scripts that have no other representation in Debian fonts (at least as of when they were added to Unifont), according to https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts/UnicodeCoverage. Four of these were added in the very latest release, unifont/1:7.0.06-1: - Old Permic - Ornamental Dingbats - Geometric Shapes Extended - Supplemental Arrows-C If you have any other suggestions for getting this latest release into Testing, please let me know. Thank you, Paul Hardy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAJqvfD_yAVsmpdjgsBjmwSbB4yWP7OpxqUt=5d0azivevse...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Please Allow unifont/1:7.0.06-1 (Unstable) to Migrate to Testing
Niels, On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Niels Thykier ni...@thykier.net wrote: Rather than emails, please file bugs for unblock requests. Bugs are easier to track and can be tagged in the BTS. Okay. I wasn't sure whether or not this situation would block migration but didn't want to take a chance. The problem mentioned is not a blocker for migration on its own. I see nothing beyond age currently blocking the migration of unifont/1:7.0.06-1. At this rate, it should become valid tomorrow night (UTC). ~Niels Great. No need to file something in the BTS then. Thanks for the light-speed reply! Paul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAJqvfD94ph0snS_no+v=yfafbinnguzcrsrnvvtwaj5yv4f...@mail.gmail.com
Bug#730870: pu: unifont -- RoM; NMU Version in Stable Undoes Ubuntu Fix
Adam, On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.ukwrote: On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 19:13 -0800, Paul Hardy wrote: On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.uk wrote: Control: tags -1 + moreinfo On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 07:59 -0700, unifoun...@unifoundry.com wrote: I am requesting that the version of package Unifont in Testing, unifont 1:5.1.20080914-4, be included in the upcoming Wheezy point release primarily to align with Colin Watson's wishes for Ubuntu. What are the problems with the package in stable which this update would resolve? Aligning with Ubuntu's packaging is not a suitable reason for an update. * debian/control entries had incorrect Section fields because of revised policy (x11 instead of the new font section); now they are correct. That might be okay as part of an update, it's not enough on its own. * debian/control entries needed changes in dependencies to conform to new Debian Policy requirements. See below. * I removed vestigial defoma artifacts from the package. Are said artefacts actually causing any problems? I don't know; I can only say that nobody has told me of any problems but their removal will make the potential issue moot. [...] * Updated packaging to conform to the policy version suitable for Wheezy Stable (3.9.4), notably for the revised font handling requirements. No, the version of Policy applicable to wheezy is 3.9.3. Okay. I built the package running the current Stable distribution with automatic updates, and that configuration uses Policy 3.9.4. I'm not sure what you mean by uses Policy 3.9.4, but: $ dak ls debian-policy -s stable debian-policy | 3.9.3.1 | stable | source, all Somehow I had debian-policy 3.9.4; my error. Now I've re-installed debian-policy from the distribution and dpkg -s debian-policy shows version 3.9.3.1. [...] However, there are things in the Stable version that do not comply with changes made by version 3.9.3 in regards to font handling. As far as I can tell, 3.9.3 makes exactly 0 changes in regards to font handling. Please be more explicit. [...] Could you point to which changes you're referring to? I may just need more coffee, but checking through the upgrading checklist and changelog isn't highlighting anything obvious since policy 3.5.5 (or maybe 3.7.0 at a push). The additional fonts section was added before the Wheezy freeze. Section 2.4 of the Policy Manual v3.9.3.1 lists the debian/control sections, and fonts is listed there. This new section should be used instead of the older x11 section as per my modifications in debian/control. The changelog for debian-policy doesn't mention when that section was added. It would have been in the Squeeze time frame. I had the exact announcement where the fonts section was introduced at one point, but can't find it now. The Stable debian/control Section assignments are overridden during building, so as long as those overrides operate as expected there shouldn't be a problem. In any case, whilst the xfonts-utils dependencies are technically required, it is also in practice unlikely for their absence to be an issue, due to e.g. xorg and xutils depending on the package. To be explicit, I'm currently likely to nack this proposed update, unless answers to the queries above reveal an issue I'm missing. Regards, Adam If build overrides because of outdated debian/control section assignments and safe violations of updated dependency requirements in Policy are okay for Stable, and if there are no problems with defoma remnants in the packaging, and licensing changes reflected in Unstable suffice, then I guess there's no need to update Stable. But there's a version in Testing now that I think introduces minor changes to address all of those issues (versus the major changes that the next upload will introduce). I at least wanted to let you know about its availability and have the opportunity to update Stable. In any case, thanks for taking the time to respond to this so quickly. Paul Hardy
Bug#730870: pu: unifont -- RoM; NMU Version in Stable Undoes Ubuntu Fix
Adam, On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Adam D. Barratt a...@adam-barratt.org.ukwrote: Control: tags -1 + moreinfo On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 07:59 -0700, unifoun...@unifoundry.com wrote: I am requesting that the version of package Unifont in Testing, unifont 1:5.1.20080914-4, be included in the upcoming Wheezy point release primarily to align with Colin Watson's wishes for Ubuntu. What are the problems with the package in stable which this update would resolve? Aligning with Ubuntu's packaging is not a suitable reason for an update. From a Debian perspective, I would list these changes as most relevant: * debian/copyright reflects revised licensing for the Wen Quan Yi glyphs incorporated into Unifont. * debian/control entries had incorrect Section fields because of revised policy (x11 instead of the new font section); now they are correct. * debian/control entries needed changes in dependencies to conform to new Debian Policy requirements. * I removed vestigial defoma artifacts from the package. [...] The Debian NMU of Unifont made its way to Ubuntu and did not incorporate Colin's fix, so the upload had the effect of removing his fix from Ubuntu. That's unfortunate, but again in no way justifies an update to stable. Yes, most unfortunate, and I was asking for the change for Ubuntu's sake. [...] * Updated packaging to conform to the policy version suitable for Wheezy Stable (3.9.4), notably for the revised font handling requirements. No, the version of Policy applicable to wheezy is 3.9.3. Okay. I built the package running the current Stable distribution with automatic updates, and that configuration uses Policy 3.9.4. I've reviewed the Policy checklist for upgrading your packages and there would be no change between 3.9.3 and 3.9.4; nothing in the Testing version conflicts with 3.9.3. However, there are things in the Stable version that do not comply with changes made by version 3.9.3 in regards to font handling. * Added hardening to debian/rules. That is very much not a suitable change to be making in a stable update. I added this to remove lintian warnings because it was simple, before realizing the problem with the removal of Colin's fix from Ubuntu. At the time I started, I was just planning to improve the packaging in preparation for the next release of upstream. I also realize that updating the Policy number is frowned upon for changes to Stable, but in this case the Stable version used an outdated Policy version that did not reflect mandatory changes in how Debian now handles fonts. Please produce a full source debdiff of the changes you're proposing to make, based on the current package in stable; we will not ack updates based on a changelog. I've attached a debdiff. I think these changes are small. In contrast, the next upload I make will be significantly different; I've switched to dh and have made extensive upstream changes to Makefiles and other structural changes to the upstream sources. While I consider the version now in Testing to be very robust, there could be problems I didn't anticipate in the next version to be uploaded. Ideally, I would also therefore like to get this last 20080914 version into Stable before uploading the new (and significantly different) upstream version into Unstable. Whilst doing so, please bear in mind the comments above regarding possible suitability of changes. Regards, Adam Thanks, Paul Hardy reverted: --- unifont-5.1.20080914/debian/TODO +++ unifont-5.1.20080914.orig/debian/TODO @@ -1,11 +0,0 @@ - -* Determine optimal X-FontName for debian/ttf-unifont.defoma-hints. - In particular, determine if huge TrueType fonts must still be listed - as charcell (-c-) or if they can be listed as proportional (-p-) - without incurring a huge penalty from rasterizing the entire font - upon loading: - - X-FontName = -gnu-unifont-medium-r-normal--0-0-0-0-p-0-iso10646-1 - - - -- Paul Hardy unifoun...@unifoundry.com Fri, 8 Aug 2008 07:27:23 -0700 reverted: --- unifont-5.1.20080914/debian/ttf-unifont.postrm +++ unifont-5.1.20080914.orig/debian/ttf-unifont.postrm @@ -1,9 +0,0 @@ -#!/bin/sh -set -e - -if dpkg-maintscript-helper supports rm_conffile 2/dev/null; then - dpkg-maintscript-helper rm_conffile /etc/defoma/hints/ttf-unifont.hints 1:5.1.20080914-1 -- $@ -fi - -#DEBHELPER# - reverted: --- unifont-5.1.20080914/debian/ttf-unifont.preinst +++ unifont-5.1.20080914.orig/debian/ttf-unifont.preinst @@ -1,9 +0,0 @@ -#!/bin/sh -set -e - -if dpkg-maintscript-helper supports rm_conffile 2/dev/null; then - dpkg-maintscript-helper rm_conffile /etc/defoma/hints/ttf-unifont.hints 1:5.1.20080914-1 -- $@ -fi - -#DEBHELPER# - diff -u unifont-5.1.20080914/debian/README.Debian unifont-5.1.20080914/debian/README.Debian --- unifont-5.1.20080914/debian/README.Debian +++ unifont-5.1.20080914/debian/README.Debian @@ -1,8 +1,7 @@ unifont for Debian -- -This package was first built and tested
Re: Security team plans for the squeeze cycle
Marc, On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Marc Brockschmidt m...@marcbrockschmidt.de wrote: Heya, As announced on dda [RT1], we want to get an impression when releasing Squeeze is feasible Do you have any big changes planned? How much time would they take, and what consequences are there for the rest of the project? The Unicode Consortium just released Unicode 5.2 in October. I didn't want to reply to the above question before 5.2 was actually released. I plan to have the almost 1000 new Unicode 5.2 glyphs in the Basic Multilingual Plane added to the Debian unifont package by the end of 2009 (which fits in nicely with the new freeze date being in Spring 2010). I'm also making a few tweaks to some existing glyphs as the result of non-Debian requests that I've received. GRUB uses the unifont package's unifont.hex source file. I'll notify the GRUB team ahead of time so they can test the new version and will accommodate any needs they have for the file, as I did in the unifont-1:5.1 releases. Building the unifont-1:5.1 package was my first attempt at building any Debian package. It has multiple parts, and I finished adding the last Unicode 5.1 glyph right before the freeze. I would not have made the freeze without help from my sponsor, Anthony Fok. It looks like this time I will have a little breathing room--and so will Anthony! Thanks, Marc [RT1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2009/07/msg1.html Paul Hardy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Replacing defoma [was: Removing orphaned packages from testing]
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 8:35 PM, Paul Wise p...@debian.org wrote: On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Raphael Geissert atomo64+deb...@gmail.com wrote: If there are 148 packages there should be at least what, 20 maintainers? (I would hope there are far more) why don't they, or the fonts team, adopt defoma? or replace it with something else? 16 months of preparation of squeeze should be more than enough time to do any of both options. I hope to patch up the 6 or so packages that actually need defoma to switch to fontconfig so we can remove defoma for good. As a first start I've filed a few bugs upstream (except for xorg/x-ttcidfont-conf) and will be working on porting these to fontconfig after filing bugs on the Debian side. I think the rest of the packages are just fonts and the defoma deps can easily be removed. After that dh_installdefoma can be removed from debhelper and the defoma bits can be removed from fontconfig. . . . Paul, Do you have enough familiarity with defoma to put together a guide for font maintainers to transition from defoma to whatever the alternative will be? Should we just use fontconfig for TrueType/OpenType fonts? I use defoma for installing the unifont packages. I've seen requests to adopt defoma, but know after looking at the source code that I don't have the time to properly maintain a package of that size. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise Paul Hardy -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Preparation of the next stable Debian GNU/Linux update
Phillip, On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 6:39 AM, Philipp Kern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Preparation of Debian GNU/Linux 4.0r5 = We are preparing the next revision of the current stable Debian distribution (etch)... If you would like to get a package updated in the stable release, you are advised to talk to the stable release managers first (see http://www.debian.org/intro/organization). I see from the list that you're a manager on the Stable release team, so I hope this message satisfies the above requirement. :-) Can you include the latest version of the package I'm maintaining, unifont 1:5.1.20080914-1, which is currently in testing? The latest package has these improvements over the versions (original backport) currently in stable: * Closes all known bugs (some of which had been open in Debian for years). * Addresses potential DFSG issues, notably with a replacement of the 11,000+ glyphs in the Hangul Syllables block. * Provides complete coverage of the Unicode Basic Multilingual Plane. * Includes all additions for Unicode 5.1, released in April 2008. * Incorporates improvements made in older Ubuntu versions that weren't ported back to Debian. I did most of the development of the package under etch 4.0r3, and always made sure during development that the latest version would still build and install under 4.0r3. The current package builds under 4.0r3 with just a couple of warnings: 1) Warns about using a version of Policy 3.7.2. 2) Warns that the Homepage: control field isn't recognized and is being skipped. I asked about these for backporting to etch on the debian-mentors IRC channel a while ago. I was told that I should ignore those messages (because they were harmless) rather than constructing a separate backport control file. According to that advice, the version of unifont currently in testing should therefore be suitable as is for etch 4.0r5 (which probably won't even give the above two warnings anymore). Paul Hardy GPG Key ID: E6E6E390 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please unblock unifont-1:5.1.20080820-1
Please consider unblocking unifont-1:5.1.20080820-1, currently in unstable. It fixes RC bug #495729, just discovered last week. That bug is related to a DFSG issue with the entire Hangul Syllables block of 11,172 glyphs (syllables) that affects all previous versions of this package. I uploaded the new version right before the previous version was moved into testing. I think it is safe to migrate unifont-1:5.1.20080820-1 to testing for lenny, given that all that was changed was a block of glyphs and some documentation. The version in unstable has built on all architectures. This bug also affects GRUB, and has been cloned by Robert Millan as RC bug #496061. I am enclosing a debdiff file, edited in three places only to remove 2 * 11,172 lines where the old block of glyphs was removed and the new block added. Those locations are marked [DELETED 2 * 11172 LINES]. Paul Hardy GPG Key ID: E6E6E390 unifont-edited.debdiff Description: Binary data
Re: unifont 1:5.1.20080808-2 MIGRATED to testing
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul Hardy wrote: Please replace unifont-1:5.1.20080808-2 with the unifont-1:5.1.20080820-1 version uploaded yesterday. All previous versions have a newly discovered RC bug related to DFSG, #495729. The latest and previous versions are completely compatible with each other, and no source code was modified between the two versions. Therefore I believe that the unifont-1:5.1.20080820-1 version is suitable for testing. unblocked I just sent another email about this with a debdiff attached while you were sending this email -- thanks! Paul Hardy GPG Key ID: E6E6E390 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: unifont 1:5.1.20080808-2 MIGRATED to testing
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Debian testing watch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FYI: The status of the unifont source package in Debian's testing distribution has changed. Previous version: 1:1.0-4 Current version: 1:5.1.20080808-2 -- This email is automatically generated; the Debian Release Team debian-release@lists.debian.org is responsible. See http://release.debian.org/testing-watch/ for more information. Please replace unifont-1:5.1.20080808-2 with the unifont-1:5.1.20080820-1 version uploaded yesterday. All previous versions have a newly discovered RC bug related to DFSG, #495729. The latest and previous versions are completely compatible with each other, and no source code was modified between the two versions. Therefore I believe that the unifont-1:5.1.20080820-1 version is suitable for testing. Paul Hardy GPG Key ID: E6E6E390 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Seeking pre-approval for unifont update for Lenny
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 9:40 PM, Paul Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In speaking with Debian Developer Changwoo Ryu, maintainer of bf-utf, xfonts-baekmuk, and other packages, he told me that the Hanterm fonts have previously been removed from Debian because of concerns over ambiguity of their license. ... I got the copy of the Hanterm fonts that I used in the unifont package from a FreeBSD distribution that stated that those fonts were released under GPL. Fedora also listed them under GPL. However, if there was concern over ambiguity with the licensing of those fonts in Debian in the past enough to cause their removal elsewhere in Debian, it seems necessary to remove any trace of them from the unifont package (and anywhere else they might still be lurking unnoticed). Here is what I've been able to find: * 1 Nov 1999: Chu-yeon Park posts ITP for hanterm, hanterm-fonts-johab, with follow-ups suggesting xfonts-johab as a better name for the font package. These fonts are the same that were used to generate Hangul in every version of the Debian unifont package, past and present. See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/11/msg4.html * The listing for the hanterm package in potato, http://archive.debian.net/potato/hanterm, shows package xfonts-johab as not available, but does show the xfonts-baekmuk package as available. Changwoo Ryu is the current maintainer of xfonts-baekmuk. * The original hanterm package became hanterm-classic, and wasn't included in the etch release. * No reported bugs for xfonts-johab are archived at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?package=xfonts-johab * Various build records found on the net complain that a Suggests: xfonts-johab dependency can't be met for hanterm in potato. I could not find an actual message saying we must remove the xfonts-johab package from Debian because... Changwoo Ryu was involved with the 1999 hanterm thread. I'll go on his memory that xfonts-johab was removed because of concerns with ambiguity of the licensing for those fonts. Can I replace the existing Hangul Syllables block in the unifont package with ones that Changwoo Ryu added to his bf-utf-source copy of unifont.bdf to avoid any potential concerns? Paul Hardy GPG Key ID: E6E6E390 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Seeking pre-approval for unifont update for Lenny
In speaking with Debian Developer Changwoo Ryu, maintainer of bf-utf, xfonts-baekmuk, and other packages, he told me that the Hanterm fonts have previously been removed from Debian because of concerns over ambiguity of their license. The unifont Debian package has always used Hanterm fonts as the basis of its Hangul Syllables block (U+AC00..U+D7A3). This is 11,172 glyphs in all -- approximately 1/6 of the entire font. Older unifont packages (not the ones I assembled for Debian) also used Hanterm fonts in the U+1100..U+11FF range (I redrew that range with lighter-weight glyphs). I got the copy of the Hanterm fonts that I used in the unifont package from a FreeBSD distribution that stated that those fonts were released under GPL. Fedora also listed them under GPL. However, if there was concern over ambiguity with the licensing of those fonts in Debian in the past enough to cause their removal elsewhere in Debian, it seems necessary to remove any trace of them from the unifont package (and anywhere else they might still be lurking unnoticed). I would therefore like to upload a new version of the unifont package that does the following: * Deletes the font/hangul directory. * Replaces the font/hexsrc/rc-hangul.hex file with a new rc-hangul.hex file generated from the Hangul Syllables block in Changwoo Ryu's modified unifont.bdf file in his bf-utf-source Debian package. * Update any documentation accordingly. * Fix the debian/control description for the unifont package noting that it is now more than just a metapackage (to close minor bug 494662). No source code will change. The glyph changes can be done quickly with software I've been using for over half a year, so I consider the font modification to be very low-risk. I will also check over the entire font (bitmap and TrueType versions) before upload. I need to do a little more research for a bug report, but if there is a licensing concern it does sound RC and it affects all past versions of the unifont package in Debian, and all past versions of the Unifont font within and outside of Debian. Can I make the modifications described above? Paul Hardy GPG Key ID: E6E6E390 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please allow unifont-1:5.1.20080706-1 into testing
Neil: On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Neil McGovern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 10:16:16PM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote: Please allow the latest unifont package into Testing. The package, unifont-1:5.1.20080706-1, was uploaded into NEW last week. This seems to have a new version in unstable. Can you confirm which version you're looking to ship with lenny? I would like to get version unifont-1:5.1.20080808-2 into Lenny (the latest version in unstable). Robert Millan just did an NMU of it yesterday. unifont-1:5.1.20080706-1 was uploaded just before the freeze and Adeodato Simó unblocked it. Unfortunately, that version introduced an RC bug; I moved the file unifont.pcf.gz, which had been in the old unifont package, to the xfonts-unifont package and I didn't include Replaces/Conflicts entries in the control file for xfonts-unifont. So there was a complaint that xfonts-unifont was overwriting the old unifont's unifont.pcf.gz file. I split the PCF font into a separate package because I introduced a TrueType version of the font in ttf-unifont. I wanted to allow someone to be able to install the TrueType font without the PCF font. I created the split upon recommendations from a Debian mailing list. So, I then released unifont-1:5.1.20080808-1 with permission of Adeodato Simó. That version also incorporated updates from Ubuntu that had never been ported back to Debian, and I fine-tuned some Chinese glyphs. On Saturday, I got a bug report that without the file /usr/share/unifont/unifont.hex in place, GRUB wouldn't display graphical characters properly -- another RC bug. I hadn't created that file because my package now creates 4 versions of a unifont.hex file. I quickly put together another package, unifont-1:5.1.20080808-2, on Saturday night to fix that bug. Robert Millan (who reported the bug) tested my package on Sunday, was satisfied with it, and performed an NMU. Adeodato had asked me to upload it ASAP. So I would like to get unifont-1:5.1.20080808-2 into Lenny. This is a major update of the old package that includes complete coverage of the Unicode 5.1 Basic Multilingual Plane (the first 65,536 code points) and also has a scalable TrueType font version. As for unifont-1:5.1.20080706-1 and unifont-1:5.1.20080808-1, they can be ignored where possible since they have RC bugs associated with them. Paul Hardy GPG Key ID: E6E6E390 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Seeking pre-approval for unifont update for Lenny
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul Hardy wrote: Robert Millan just informed me via Bug #494473 (Severity: Important) that the latest version of GRUB depends on the file /usr/share/unifont/unifont.hex being present. ... Can a -2 version of unifont be uploaded that contains that file? Yes, should be possible. I think it makes sense to fix it soon. unifont-5.1.20080808-2 places that file (and a few others) in /usr/share/unifont. The package is now in unstable. Paul Hardy GPG Key ID: E6E6E390 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Seeking pre-approval for unifont update for Lenny
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 7:48 AM, Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: unifont/1:5.1.20080808-1 unblocked. Robert Millan just informed me via Bug #494473 (Severity: Important) that the latest version of GRUB depends on the file /usr/share/unifont/unifont.hex being present. That file wasn't in my package because I now create four hex file versions (with and without combining circles etc., and with or without the Wen Quan Yi CJK ideographs for complete Unicode Plane 0 coverage). Can a -2 version of unifont be uploaded that contains that file? If so, what should the timeframe be? Would it be best to fix GRUB quickly, or best to wait a few days and see if anything else is reported? I posted a couple of ways to copy or generate the unifont.hex file on the bug report as a temporary workaround. Paul Hardy GPG Key ID: E6E6E390 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Seeking pre-approval for unifont update for Lenny
On 8/5/08, Adeodato Simó [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Paul Hardy [Tue, 05 Aug 2008 08:27:00 -0700]: Can I upload a new version of .orig.tar.gz with all of the changes ... Ok. Can I wait until Friday to give a few days for any other problems to be spotted and corrected in the package uploaded before the freeze? Sure. The new version has been uploaded to NEW, thanks to my sponsor Anthony Fok. And good thing I waited until Friday; one more RC bug was reported Thursday night. Thank you! Paul Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key ID: E6E6E390 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Seeking pre-approval for unifont update for Lenny
Right before the freeze, my sponsor uploaded an updated version of the unifont package, unifont-1:5.1.20080706-1. This update fixed a Severity: important bug in the existing Debian version (incomplete copyright/licensing information). Current policy seems to indicate that a package can't even be included without complete copyright licensing information. The uploaded package also closes every other bug for unifont except one for including unifont-bin utilities including unitopbm (the unitopbm author hasn't replied to my inquiry about licensing, so I couldn't include his program and I'm leaving the bug open for now). Also, for the first time for this package, there is a glyph for every visible code point in the Unicode Basic Multilingual Plane (Plane 0, the first 65,536 code points) -- it is a very major update to the old Debian package that adds almost 20,000 previously missing glyphs. Here are the bugs closed: #455101: Severity: important bug - lack of full copyright/license info fixed #178204: spacing - new TrueType version is spaced properly, including combining characters such as accents (as well as being scalable) #218720: contains most recent version of unifont glyphs #356594: adopted unifont package, orphaned in 2006 #441357: incorporates Rich Felker's Tibetan glyphs Unfortunately, an omission in the debian/control of Conflicts and Replaces for one of the entries created a new bug of Severity: grave (#493711) -- if the old unifont package is already installed, an attempt to install xfonts-unifont would fail (the package names differ, and they both use the same unifont.pcf.gz file). I turned unifont into xfonts-unifont (for the PCF version) and ttf-unifont (for the TrueType version) upon the recommendation of someone on these mailing lists. That new bug is easy to fix but I wanted to wait a few days now that the new unifont is in unstable and see if anyone spots anything else. This was my very first attempt at Debian packaging, so it is possible that I overlooked something else. After doing that upload, in preparing for an upload to Ubuntu, I am adding improvements made in the Ubuntu version of unifont that weren't ported back to Debian (or anywhere else for that matter, since there was no upstream for unifont for quite a while). I hadn't been running Ubuntu (just Sarge and then Etch) while working on unifont, so I didn't know about the Ubuntu changes earlier. I also cleaned up the final block of glyphs, in the U+FFxx range (something I didn't have time to do while trying to upload before the Lenny freeze). I also made a few very minor changes to the src/ directory to make a couple of programs a little more resilient to user-fed data. A simple diff would show almost 1000 lines changed, but they are almost all improvements to glyphs. Changes to src/ are minor. Can I upload a new version of .orig.tar.gz with all of the changes (including additions that others previously made for Ubuntu that had never been brought into Debian) rather than just a -2 that only fixes the missing Conflicts/Replaces control file entry for inclusion into testing? Can I wait until Friday to give a few days for any other problems to be spotted and corrected in the package uploaded before the freeze? Paul Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please allow unifont-1:5.1.20080706-1 into testing
Please allow the latest unifont package into Testing. The package, unifont-1:5.1.20080706-1, was uploaded into NEW last week. I didn't realize that the Lenny freeze was coming so soon until I saw an announcement on July 19th, and my sponsor (Anthony Fok) and I hurried to upload it before the freeze. I had just completed the font's coverage of the Unicode Basic Multilingual Plane on the 6th of July. Before then, my focus was almost entirely on completing the font. This new version closes a Severity: important bug that I forgot to mention in debian/changelog: Bug #455101 (incomplete debian/copyright info). I marked the bug as closed by this version in the BTS, but then found it would have been better to mark it as Pending until the new version was accepted. I was afraid that without mention of the copyright file being complete, the package would not have been accepted. In addition, this release closes 4 other bugs and almost closes the final bug. Here are notes of changes to the package from the debian/changelog file (in addition to the Bug #455101 fix): * Adopted orphaned unifont Debian package (Closes: #356594) * Complete coverage of Unicode 5.1 Plane 0 (first coverage of all Plane 0) * New version number (5.1) reflects Unicode 5.1 as its design base * Adds Qianqian Fang's high-quality Wen Quan Yi CJK ideograph bitmaps * Contains most recent unifont version as of 6 July 2008 (Closes: #218720) * TrueType font scalable to any size (Closes: #178204) * Combining characters (e.g., accents) work properly in TrueType font * PCF font still included for now (TrueType is recommended with latest xfs) * Incorporates Rich Felker's Tibetan glyphs (Closes: #441357) * Built and tested under stable Etch release (4.0r3) * Added unifont-bin utilities package - Complete unifont font sources in Roman Czyborra's original .hex format - Roman Czyborra's most important unifont Perl scripts (incl. orig hex2bdf) - David Starner's modified hex2bdf not included (Debian no longer uses BDF, and as David Starner noted splitting the BDF font breaks yudit) - Luis Gonzales Miranda's TrueType unifont conversion scripts - Paul Hardy's C programs for graphic editing of unifont glyphs - man pages for all programs - unitopbm.c not included -- license undetermined (keep bug 62356 open) This was my first Debian package, but I still assembled it trying to close all outstanding bugs. This builds on Etch, Sid, and non-Debian unices that I've tested. I haven't tested it on a non-Intel platform, but wrote my graphics programs to perform I/O one byte at a time for byte-order independence. It should be very portable. I'm certainly willing to fix any errors to get it into Lenny. Paul Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Key ID: E6E6E390 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
