Control: block 1062808 by -1 On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 08:29:49PM -0500, Boyuan Yang wrote: > * Package name : uharfbuzz
Through no fault of yours and as a result of my bad judgement (for not filing an ITP first) and extremely bad luck (for the wild coincidence), I worked on packaging uharfbuzz over the weekend, and placed the finishing strokes yesterday... I was about to send the ITP when I saw yours. Oh well! I pushed my work now to https://salsa.debian.org/paravoid/uharfbuzz and I'm comparing it to yours; a few notes: 1) Did you generate the tarball by hand to remove the vendored harfbuzz source? I repacked the tarball through have "Files-Excluded: harfbuzz". I picked the tarball up from PyPI, not GitHub, but I see the GitHub one also includes it. 2) I also stripped the tarball from the pregenerated Cython code (src/uharfbuzz/_harfbuzz.cpp, src/uharfbuzz/_harfbuzz_test.cpp) through Files-Excluded, as well as debian/clean. 3) On the matter of test data - I checked the source of some of these (like Adobe Blank), and realized that a) the binaries are not the preferred source of modification - some use afdko etc. b) they are modified (likely using (u)harfbuzz itself) to remove glyphs etc. So I did the following: a) Added tests/data to Files-Excluded; b) Used the fonts that exist in Debian (STIX and Open Sans) as B-D c) Wrote a script to generate the subsets that uharfbuzz expects, which uses fonttools. See debian/generate_test_data.py. d) Patched the upstream source to skip tests for not-found fonts. Longer-term, I was also thinking of packaging the remaining fonts. 4) I think you need python3-all and python3-all-dev, not python3/python3-dev. 5) I think my extended description is a bit nicer :) I did not know the source extended description trick though! TIL. Let me know what you think of the above, and I can commit them to the repository. (I used to maintain some fonts, so I'll check whether I have access to the DFTF salsa.) Regards, Faidon
