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]