> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 20:54:32 +0000
> From: Ken Poppet <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] pt.3 -- Re: Xorg bitmap fonts - deprecate them
>
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:55:57PM +0000, akhiezer wrote:
> > > Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 13:35:55 +0000
> > > From: Ken Moffat <[email protected]>
> > > Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] Xorg bitmap fonts - deprecate them
> > >
To reiterate in summary, addressing much of your words:
--
* the central point is about managing the book information, incl
release engineering.
* it's better to do the phase-out as the two-stage process than the
one-stage; that includes educational value.
--
It seems that maybe you are a bit too close to the fine-details of the
subject matter to see the wider-picture trees.
> >
> > The legacy page should at this time include all of the fonts/&c that
> > you've removed from elsewhere.
> >
>
> On this, I disagree strongly. We've carried multiple versions of
> some of the old fonts (bitmap, Type1, ttf) for too long. Meanwhile
> current distros use TTF/OTF and even our own xterm page is already
> set to do that.
>
> BLFS, like LFS, is about learning AND about building leading-edge
> software.
>
> > And only after a few more book releases, then remove some/all of the
> > items from the book.
> >
> > That's a standard way of 'putting out to pasture' - phasing out - such
> > materials: don't just - for such a case - do the reorganise and remove
> > in same step.
> >
>
> IFF somebody wants them, I provided links to the relevant page in
> the two 7.10 books. But nobody really documented what those bitmap
> fonts were good for. Initially they were part of monolithic X.
> So I have no idea *why* anybody might want them. Do you have a
> use-case ?
>
> > It's ok though to prioritise at this time the focus on the
> > libXfont/bdftopcf/font-adobe-100dpi .
> >
> >
> > > +
> > > +<sect1 id="xorg7-legacy" xreflabel="Xorg Legacy">
> > > + <?dbhtml filename="x7legacy.html"?>
> > > +
> > > + <sect1info>
> > > + <othername>$LastChangedBy: dibbler $</othername>
> > > + <date>$Date: 2038-01-19 03:14:07 +0000 (Tue, 19 Jan 2038) $</date>
> > > + </sect1info>
> > > +
> > > + <title>Xorg Legacy</title>
> > > +
> > > + <indexterm zone="xorg7-legacy">
> > > + <primary sortas="a-xorg7-legacy">Xorg Legacy</primary>
> > > + </indexterm>
> > > +
> > > + <sect2 role="package">
> > > + <title>Introduction to Xorg Legacy</title>
> > > +
> > > + <para><application>Xorg</application> originally provided bitmap
> > > fonts,
> >
> >
> > 'originally' implies that it now doesn't: does it still; if so then
> > reword.
> >
> I can change originally to 'at first only'.
The 'at first only' is better.
> Does that help you ?
("Now, now"). It helps the book and readers of the book.
> >
> > > + and a tool (<command>bdftopcf</command>) to assist in their
> > > installation.
> > > + With the introduction of
> > > <application>xorg-server-1.19.0</application>
> > > + and <application>libXfont2</application>, many people will not need
> > > them.
> > > + There are still a few old packages which might require, or benefit
> > > from,
> > > + these deprecated fonts and so the following packages are shown
> > > here.</para>
> >
> >
> > Those last two sentences - and in partic the last - are a bit too vague
> > and ~hand-waving; and leave readers a bit too much in the dark.
> >
>
> Beyond the two packages from the book which I mention below, I have
> no idea what strange desktop packages might still need bitmap fonts.
> Possibly, somebody wrote an application years ago, abandonned it, and
> somebody else is still using it. In an infinite universe, anything
> is possible.
>
> I know of the two packages in the book, I also recall that when I
> first started looking at console fonts (probably in 2006 or 2007) I
> initially started from a bdf source file, but I do not recall
> whether it actually used bdftopcf, only that at the time somebody
> used my variant to create a bitmapped psf and raised a bug. Also,
> the default Makefile of Terminus uses bdftopcf to create bitmap
> fonts and some format for (I think) a BSD.
>
> > At least, for those packages (if any) that are in BLFS and that
> > are _known_ or _thought_ to still require the now-legacy materials,
> > they should be listed and linked-to explicitly: if there are only a
> > few such packages (e.g. tigervnc &c) then it's not a hassle to list;
> > if the list were not short, then it'd call into question doing the
> > 'legacy' stuff yet.
> >
> They are linked *from* (tigervnc, xscreensaver). As in the rest of
> the book, we expect you to know what you want to build, and then
> determin e the depen den cies and come up with a build order. So
> for everything else people who do that can build Xorg without t he
> Xorg Legacy packages.
> > > +
> > > + <note>
> > > + <para>
> > > + The font-adobe-100dpi package installs 100 dots per inch
> > > versions of
> > > + Courier, Helvetica, New Century Schoolbook and Times fonts. In
> > > previous
> > > + versions of BLFS a lot more fonts were installed, and also 75
> > > dots per
> >
> >
> > s/and also/including/
> >
> > or maybe even (less good)
> >
> > s/and also/plus/
> >
> > - but _NOT_ 'and also'; red pen.
> >
>
> Sorry, if you apply a red pen I'm inclined to screw up the paper and
> put it in the bin ;-)
Still wrong, though.
(But do go ahead and screw/toss your materials if you prefer.)
> In the country where I live, this is perfectly
> acceptable in most written English
It's still known-bad use of English.
> (and as a nation we now denigrate
> experts).
( - 'meeja'-speak. No you don't.)
>
> I can change it to 'installed, also'.
That'd be even worse use of English.
The 'including' is better sense, given what the two sentences of the
para are saying.
> > > + inch versions.
> > > + </para>
> > > +
> > > + <para revision="sysv">
> > > + Please consult the BLFS-7.10 book at <ulink
> > > +
> > > url="http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/7.10/x/x7font.html"/>
> > > + if you wish to install any of those other fonts.
> >
> >
> > Still too vague: you're leaving readers to hunt'n'peck, while you
> > know what they're likely to be looking for.
>
> No, I *don't* know why anybody would want to use any of the other
> bitmap fonts.
>
> > Again: for packages in
> > BLFS that are known/thought to still require the legacy materials,
> > state the details explicitly. As noted, such materials should anyhow
> > be listed in legacy page.
> >
>
> Again, I disagree strongly. The adobe fonts (which I listed on the
> page) seem to be all that is necessary. If you read a non-latin
> writing system then they might be inadequate - I would not know, and
> I assume that people building a BLFS desktop for such users will be
> using TTF or OTF fonts.
>
> >
> > > + </para>
> > > +
> > > + <para revision="systemd">
> > > + Please consult the BLFS-7.10 systemd book at <ulink
> > > +
> > > url="http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/7.10-systemd/x/x7font.html"/>
> > > + if you wish to install any of those other fonts.
> > > + </para>
> > > + </note>
> > > +
> >
> >
> > Ditto.
> >
> Only one of those paragraphs will apply in a particular book, so
> obviously your comment has to apply to both of them.
- just some extra clarification & aide-memoire place-marker, erring
on the safe side: e.g. it's presumably also "obvious" to you that if
you remove a font entry from one list, then you'd remove it from the
essentially same-list/same-context elsewhere; but not everyone would
always _do_ such an "obvious" thing; and an aide-memoire place-marker
clarificatory check-item can help avoid such omissions.
>
.
.
>
rgds,
akh
--
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
