> Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 23:17:40 +0000
> From: Ken Moffat <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] pt.3 -- Re: Xorg bitmap fonts - deprecate them
>
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:24:50PM +0000, akhiezer wrote:
> >
> > To reiterate in summary, addressing much of your words:
> > --
> > * the central point is about managing the book information, incl
> > release engineering.
> >
>
> At the moment, this is a proposed change. If my fellow editors
> agree, something based on it will go into the development book. If
You did ask for opinions please: now you seem to be restricting to
editors-only.
> there are then problems, it can be altered or reverted.
>
> > * it's better to do the phase-out as the two-stage process than the
> > one-stage; that includes educational value.
>
> Says you.
( - childish pouting.)
>
> > --
> > It seems that maybe you are a bit too close to the fine-details of the
> > subject matter to see the wider-picture trees.
> >
>
> That I will accept - those of us who are editing the book have
(Again, you seem to try to 'pull rank' back to editors-only, after
asking for opinions please. "Editing" does not auto-confer goodness on
person or their book content: and your current proposed edits contain
not-good aspects; and I'd contend that that is clearly and obviously so.)
> visions of where certain things can be improved.
('Visions', indeed.)
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> >
> >
>
> So far, _you_ are the only person complaining about the wording, so
('Complaining' is your misapprehension.)
> I was asking if it helped you.
(You know 'fine well' the tone and weight of your phrasing: don't be
now transparently dishonest and try to pretend innocence and ignorance.)
> > > >
> > > > > + 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.)
> >
>
> I didn't say I was going to toss out what I'd prepared -
(Nobody said you were; your simple misapprehension.)
> only the
> piece of paper where you thought you had the right to mark the
> grammar.
(Again, your misapprehension: instead, the 'red pen' was just an image,
an objective side-comment matter-of-fact analogy; but seems to have
been received more-pointedly.)
>
> >
> > > In the country where I live, this is perfectly
> > > acceptable in most written English
> >
> >
> > It's still known-bad use of English.
> >
>
> Ooh.
( ^^^^^ wtf .... . )
> I will now assert that English is a *living* language, and
> asserting that there is one good form for all situations (and
> therefore others can be known-bad) is false.
>
> >
> > > (and as a nation we now denigrate
> > > experts).
> >
> >
> > ( - 'meeja'-speak. No you don't.)
> >
>
> As a nation, we do.
( - media-speak; no, you don't.)
> I might not like that, but the voters have
> spoken.
(Quoting your own type and level of language: 'Ooh'.)
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
>
>
> Of course.
> And unlike you, I make a lot of mistakes
( - again, childish pouting nonsense.)
(Nobody's criticising making mistakes per se (tho' clinging to them is
another matter): you seemed riled by the 'Ditto'; and were then having
its inclusion explained to you. That's obvious, and was and is obvious
to you, yr attempted rejoinders notwithstanding.)
>- even while
> developing the book.
It's not _developing_ if it's inadvisable, bad content - and obviously so.
> I am once again doubtful about using my time
> to reply to you.
You asked for opinions please: the various areas of not-good-ness were
outlined; and you appear to not like being told so.
(Be a plonk'er if you like ;] ).
>
akh
--
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
