Your message dated Sun, 18 Sep 2022 21:10:55 -0700
with message-id <877d20qa0g....@hope.eyrie.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#941803: debian-policy: dependencies on font packages
has caused the Debian Bug report #941803,
regarding debian-policy: dependencies on font packages
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
941803: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=941803
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.4.1.1
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
Policy section 11.8.5, point 1 says
> If one or more of the fonts so packaged are necessary for proper
> operation of the package with which they are associated the font
> package may be Recommended; if the fonts merely provide an
> enhancement, a Suggests relationship may be used. Packages must not
> Depend on font packages.
The associated footnote explains that
> This is because the X server may retrieve fonts from the local file
> system or over the network from an X font server; the Debian package
> system is empowered to deal only with the local file system.
While this is still technically true, it seems rather irrelevant
nowadays: most GUI programs directly render fonts obtained locally,
and even for “traditional” X fonts, the vast majority of systems will
obtain the fonts locally. Debian hasn’t had xfs for 5.5 years
(<https://bugs.debian.org/bug=733958>); there is another font server
available, xfstt, but that only handles TrueType fonts.
It’s common for packages to strongly depend on non-X fonts they need;
see for example the reverse dependencies of fonts-dejavu. While
lintian objects to X font depencencies
(<https://lintian.debian.org/tags/package-depends-on-an-x-font-package.html>),
it doesn’t have anything to say about non-X fonts (rightly so).
Wouldn’t it make sense to relax the constraints on X font
dependencies?
Regards,
Stephen
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 10.1
APT prefers stable-updates
APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable-debug'), (500, 'stable'),
(100, 'unstable-debug'), (100, 'testing-debug'), (100, 'unstable'), (100,
'testing'), (1, 'experimental-debug'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 4.19.0-6-amd64 (SMP w/8 CPU cores)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_OOT_MODULE, TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8),
LANGUAGE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
debian-policy depends on no packages.
Versions of packages debian-policy recommends:
ii libjs-sphinxdoc 1.8.4-1
Versions of packages debian-policy suggests:
ii doc-base 0.10.8
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 4.5.0.0
Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes:
> Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes:
>> Stephen Kitt <sk...@debian.org> writes:
>>> Is the following suitable?
>> Yup, this looks great. Seconded. Once this gets one more second, we'll
>> apply it.
> And now applied for the next release.
This was indeed uploaded in 4.5.0.0, but we missed a bug closer in the
changelog.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
--- End Message ---
