Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Hi Norbert et al., Am Dienstag, den 10.09.2013, 10:04 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining: My suggestion is: * upload fonts-urw-base35 without any gsfonts relations whatsoever. Done now it GIT, could you please have a look at it? Thank you! - Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
On Mi, 11 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Done now it GIT, could you please have a look at it? Sure: Can I ask you one more change ... sorry for being picky. For now, I would suggest to remove the epoch, as it is not necessary anymore. What do you think? Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Am Donnerstag, den 12.09.2013, 10:14 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining: For now, I would suggest to remove the epoch, as it is not necessary anymore. Alright, it is removed in GIT. Thanks! - Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Hi Norbert, Am Dienstag, den 10.09.2013, 10:04 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining: You are a bit overdoing. First, did you consider the fact that the fonts currently in gsfonts provide cyrillic glyphs. Now removing them, what are the consequences? Are you aware, have you planned for that? Have you provided alternatives? The cyrillic glyphs were added to the urwcyr fork back in the GNOME 1.x days. At that time, GNOME still used the X11 font server to display fonts and there were no free fonts with a better glyph coverage available. Both facts have changed now. The cyrillic glyphs from the urwcyr fork have been merged into the GNU Freefont project. I mention this in the package description and also suggest that package. Reportedly, the glyphs were of questionable quality and the latin glyphs were also (unintentionally) modified in this fork. For that reason, both Ghostscript and TeX reverted back to the pristine URW releases. AFAICT both have never made use of the cyrillic glyphs, anyway, since the original Adobe base fonts also never contained them. There are a lot of packages wiht rdepends on gsfonts(-x11). You have to consider the impact of yor changes. The fonts are made available to X11 under the same names as in the gsfonts-x11 package. The scale and alias files were left untouched. Only because there is a newer upstream or release, it does not mean it makes immediate sense to go forth with it. Sure, that's right. But there is also no need to stick to the old solution just because it happens to work somehow. And I think in this case it makes really sense to replace an old unmaintained fork with a new release by the original upstream, who happens to be a professional font manufacturer, and which addresses all the issues that have led to prior micro-forking among the involved projects. That I will do after we - the TeX Live team (upstream, not Debian!) - has taken the new URW fonts. For this we have to evaluate the metrics. Honestly, I have no idea how to evaluate the metrics and how to justify then if they have improved or become worse or changed too much. I am, however, sure that optimizing the metrics to be more like the Adobe ones was part of the deal that led to the new URW upstream release. Do you want to have Don Knuth coming after you because suddenly the ps files he creates look weird because the spacing is wrong? Well, *that* would be an interesting afternoon. :) I am in discussion with Karl Berry about that. But as long as none of us (you, me, Karl, Walter Schmidt, ...) comes up with an evaluation of the metrics and changes, it will take a bit of time. As mentioned before, since I cannot tell you if the metrics are better or worse from a TeX point of view, I'll leave that up to you to decide. My suggestion is: * upload fonts-urw-base35 without any gsfonts relations whatsoever. * file bugs against gsfonts(-x11) on transition to fonts-urw-base35 optimally, provide a transition plan, evaluate impact on other packages, especially with respect to the included glyph coverage Alright, I'll do that next. * file bugs against TL (or you did already I guess) and, if you want and have time and energy As soon as the package hits unstable. * provide an analysis of the metric changes that have been introduced together with a rationale for that Tell me what you need to know and I'll try my best. ALl the best Seems like I'll need it. :) Cheers, Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Am Montag, den 09.09.2013, 13:34 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining:
Nothing. There is no way you can easily take over a package.
So they can block development by sheer ignorance?
You *can* upload fonts-urw-base35 and do everything there is, *without*
sjhipping temporary gsfonts packages.
If I reverted all the changes that lead fonts-urw-base35 to replace
gsfonts{,-x11}, would you make texlive-fonts-recommended depend on it
and replace its own copy with symlinks? Maybe it is easier to convince
the current maintainers to give up their packages if there is an
actively used successor that one could point at.
- Fabian
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Hi Fabian,
On Mo, 09 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
So they can block development by sheer ignorance?
You are a bit overdoing. First, did you consider the fact that
the fonts currently in gsfonts provide cyrillic glyphs.
Now removing them, what are the consequences?
Are you aware, have you planned for that? Have you provided alternatives?
There are a lot of packages wiht rdepends on gsfonts(-x11). You
have to consider the impact of yor changes.
Only because there is a newer upstream or release, it does not mean
it makes immediate sense to go forth with it.
If I reverted all the changes that lead fonts-urw-base35 to replace
gsfonts{,-x11}, would you make texlive-fonts-recommended depend on it
and replace its own copy with symlinks? Maybe it is easier to convince
That I will do after we - the TeX Live team (upstream, not Debian!) -
has taken the new URW fonts. For this we have to evaluate the
metrics.
You mentioned in a previous email the price of progress or similar.
While here we are speaking of the chance of breakage of *many* documents
out there relying proper metrics.
Do you want to have Don Knuth coming after you because suddenly the
ps files he creates look weird because the spacing is wrong?
You really should consider the consequences and impact. Changing the
base35 fonts is *not* to be undertaken lightly.
I am in discussion with Karl Berry about that. But as long as none of
us (you, me, Karl, Walter Schmidt, ...) comes up with an evaluation of
the metrics and changes, it will take a bit of time.
My suggestion is:
* upload fonts-urw-base35 without any gsfonts relations whatsoever.
* file bugs against gsfonts(-x11) on transition to fonts-urw-base35
optimally, provide a transition plan, evaluate impact on other
packages, especially with respect to the included glyph coverage
* file bugs against TL (or you did already I guess)
and, if you want and have time and energy
* provide an analysis of the metric changes that have been introduced
together with a rationale for that
ALl the best
Norbert
PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info
JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
On So, 08 Sep 2013, Norbert Preining wrote: Maybe commited, but not yet pushed. Please do so. Upps, probably - it is at the university now, cannot do anything. Will push it tomorrow. Pushed now. As long as the maintainers of gsfonts do not agree, there is no chance I will upload it. See here. Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Am Montag, den 09.09.2013, 09:10 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining: Pushed now. Thanks! As long as the maintainers of gsfonts do not agree, there is no chance I will upload it. See here. What if they don't reply? Escalate to d-devel? - Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
What if they don't reply? Escalate to d-devel? Nothing. There is no way you can easily take over a package. You *can* upload fonts-urw-base35 and do everything there is, *without* sjhipping temporary gsfonts packages. That is fine. But package take over is difficult. As it was mentioned recently on d-d: We can easily change the init system of Debian, but not change maintainership. ALl the best Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Hi again, Am Freitag, den 06.09.2013, 15:29 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining: No, I fixed one more buglet, the path in the gs fontmap snippet were pointing to /usr/share/fonts/type/fonts-urw-base35/ which is wrong, the fonts are in .../urw-base35/ (no fonts- directory part). o_O Good catch! I would have sweared that I have found and fixed all glitches like this so far. I fixed that and updated the changelog for a new date and committed the change, please pull before doing any further changes. Maybe commited, but not yet pushed. Please do so. Then: Do you have the agreement from the maintainers of gsfonts and gsfonts-x11 to take over the two packages? Sorry, I haven't seen any email, so I want ot make sure. No, not yet. I admit, I am a bit puzzled about that as well. I have included them in every mail in CC so far and did not get a single reaction yet - neither positive nor negative. Will try again in a minute... Thank you! - Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Dear Kenshi Muto, Masayuki Hatta and Roland Rosenfeld, I contact you, because you are the latest active maintainers of the gsfonts and gsfonts-x11 packages, respectively. As you may have seen already in #721521, I am going to upload the fonts-urw-base35 packages that contains the latest update of upstream author URW to the font set that is metric compatible to the Postscript 35 base set. Thus, it will replace the gsfonts package and provide a transitional dummy package of that name. Furthermore, while at it, I am going to merge the effort to make these fonts available to X11 from the gsfonts-x11 package. Thus, this package will get replaced with a transitional dummy packages as well. Since these are firmally your packages, I'd like to make sure you are informed about these consequences beforehand. Furthermore, I would appreciate if you could acknowledge these changes or raise your objections now, before it is probably a bit late. Thank you very much for your replies! Best regards, - Fabian Am Freitag, den 06.09.2013, 15:29 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining: Hi Fabian, a few comments: On Do, 05 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Should be *really* ready for upload now! Please pull the latest commits, though. No, I fixed one more buglet, the path in the gs fontmap snippet were pointing to /usr/share/fonts/type/fonts-urw-base35/ which is wrong, the fonts are in .../urw-base35/ (no fonts- directory part). I fixed that and updated the changelog for a new date and committed the change, please pull before doing any further changes. Then: Do you have the agreement from the maintainers of gsfonts and gsfonts-x11 to take over the two packages? Sorry, I haven't seen any email, so I want ot make sure. Thanks Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Hi Fabian, On Sa, 07 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Maybe commited, but not yet pushed. Please do so. Upps, probably - it is at the university now, cannot do anything. Will push it tomorrow. No, not yet. I admit, I am a bit puzzled about that as well. I have Umpf. You *cannot* take over a package without agreement of the current maintainers. THat is considered forceful takeover and will not be accepted. Probably already straight away rejected by ftp-masters. As long as the maintainers of gsfonts do not agree, there is no chance I will upload it. Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Hi Fabian, a few comments: On Do, 05 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Should be *really* ready for upload now! Please pull the latest commits, though. No, I fixed one more buglet, the path in the gs fontmap snippet were pointing to /usr/share/fonts/type/fonts-urw-base35/ which is wrong, the fonts are in .../urw-base35/ (no fonts- directory part). I fixed that and updated the changelog for a new date and committed the change, please pull before doing any further changes. Then: Do you have the agreement from the maintainers of gsfonts and gsfonts-x11 to take over the two packages? Sorry, I haven't seen any email, so I want ot make sure. Thanks Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Am Mittwoch, den 04.09.2013, 14:22 +0200 schrieb Fabian Greffrath: Should be fixed now in GIT. Please make sure to pull the latest changes before uploading. It could use a test-run through piuparts, though, but I currently do not have enough bandwidth to install a sid chroot. :/ The package passes cleanly through piuparts now. Furthermore, I have weakened the Dependency on xfonts-utils introduced by dh_installxfonts to a Recommends so the packages does not force in any X11-related packages anymore. Should be *really* ready for upload now! Please pull the latest commits, though. Cheers, - Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Hi Norbert et al., Am Mittwoch, den 04.09.2013, 10:00 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining: For now we can upload. As long as the TeX Live package do not ship symlinks to the new fonts nothing happens. On the usptream (TeX Live) (I am also maintainer there) I will see if we can prepare an updated package for CTAN with the exact fonts, which would solve the problem automatically. It would be great if you could take care upstream that texlive is made compatible with the new urw-base35 fonts release. Bottom line: Is there anything else before I should sponsor this package? I'd say no, but I am sure that a huge glaring bug will occur the second after the package is uploaded. :) One more thing - I *agree* (for now at least) that *chanigng the /FontName is *not* a good idea. By this you mean that changing the /FontName fields *back* to the values of the old gsfonts package is a bad idea? Alright, then we just keep the font files untouched. Thank you for sposoring already! - Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2013-09-04 00:10:20) Am Dienstag, den 03.09.2013, 22:06 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: If we hack the font, should we then better change some font identifiers to ensure our flavor of the font is distinct from the pristine one? I would add +gs9.10 to the package version number then. I was more thinking about XUID and other ID fields. (thanks for the other comments - I just have no remarks to those) - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Hi Fabian, On Mi, 04 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote: On the usptream (TeX Live) (I am also maintainer there) I will see if we can prepare an updated package for CTAN with the exact fonts, which would solve the problem automatically. I have contacted Walter and Karl, as you have seen. Let us see. It would be great if you could take care upstream that texlive is made compatible with the new urw-base35 fonts release. In due time, there is no hurry, as the new fonts do not improve too much over what is currently on CTAN/TL. I'd say no, but I am sure that a huge glaring bug will occur the second after the package is uploaded. :) Sure, as usual. That is why we have unstable ;-) By this you mean that changing the /FontName fields *back* to the values of the old gsfonts package is a bad idea? Alright, then we just keep the font files untouched. Right, that was the idea. Thanks. Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Am Mittwoch, den 04.09.2013, 19:59 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining: I'd say no, but I am sure that a huge glaring bug will occur the second after the package is uploaded. :) Sure, as usual. That is why we have unstable ;-) Please wait a minute, I have found one! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Hi Norbert, Am Mittwoch, den 04.09.2013, 19:59 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining: I have contacted Walter and Karl, as you have seen. Let us see. Yes, I have seen. Thanks! In due time, there is no hurry, as the new fonts do not improve too much over what is currently on CTAN/TL. Sure, but deviations from upstream should be kept at a minimum IMHO. Sure, as usual. That is why we have unstable ;-) Phew, that was close. We need to remove the conffiles of the gsfonts and gsfonts-x11 package upon installation of fonts-urw-base35. Else we would update the font mappings for ghostscript and X11 with wrong font paths. Should be fixed now in GIT. Please make sure to pull the latest changes before uploading. It could use a test-run through piuparts, though, but I currently do not have enough bandwidth to install a sid chroot. :/ Cheers, - Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Dear Jonas and Norbert, Am Montag, den 02.09.2013, 23:33 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-fonts/fonts-urw-base35.git Cloned it, looks fine. having seen that Debian #720906 has been closed, I have updated the debian/copyright file for fonts-urw-base35 in GIT accordingly and consider the package ready now. Since none of the former maintainers of gsfonts and gsfonts-x11, respectively, have raised any concerns, I'd like to ask you to review the package and upload if appropriate. Thank you! - Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Hi Fabian, On Di, 03 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote: like to ask you to review the package and upload if appropriate. First question: Why 2:20130628-1 this package has never been released to Debian. Since you are building gsfonts which is currently at 1:8.11 would 1:20130628-1 not suffice? (Or what am I missing?) Otherwise it looks fine for me and I will upload it. Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
On Di, 03 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Yes, you are right. Since 20130628 8.11 an epoch 1: should be sufficient. My idea was, since we need an epoch anyway, I could raise it to separate the new package from the gsfonts versioning scheme. Ok, makes sense. Great, thanks! Are you going to add yourself to Uploaders? Not necessarily for now. I just sponsor it if you are fine with that. e.g. /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/map/dvips/helvetic/uhv.map explicitely mentions the font name NimbusSanL-Regu. However, this has slightly changed in fonts-urw-base35. Is this something that needs to be patched in texlive? By now we are shipping the URW fonts in TeX Live without links (/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/urw/) Is the coverage of the new gsfonts/fonts-urw as wide as the coverage of the fonts currently in TeX Live? Or, in other words, is it a complete replacement? IN this case I can arrange that in the next upload of TeX Live packages we do *not* ship the fonts, but dpend on fonts-urw* and link to the files. Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Hello Norbert, thanks for the review! Am Dienstag, den 03.09.2013, 23:30 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining: this package has never been released to Debian. Since you are building gsfonts which is currently at 1:8.11 would 1:20130628-1 not suffice? (Or what am I missing?) Yes, you are right. Since 20130628 8.11 an epoch 1: should be sufficient. My idea was, since we need an epoch anyway, I could raise it to separate the new package from the gsfonts versioning scheme. Otherwise it looks fine for me and I will upload it. Great, thanks! Are you going to add yourself to Uploaders? - Fabian PS: I have seen that e.g. /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/map/dvips/helvetic/uhv.map explicitely mentions the font name NimbusSanL-Regu. However, this has slightly changed in fonts-urw-base35. Is this something that needs to be patched in texlive? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Am Mittwoch, den 04.09.2013, 00:04 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining: Not necessarily for now. I just sponsor it if you are fine with that. Yes, sure. Is the coverage of the new gsfonts/fonts-urw as wide as the coverage of the fonts currently in TeX Live? Or, in other words, is it a complete replacement? I'd say it definitely *should* ;) The fonts have been provided by the same upstream as exact that, a drop-in replacement for the fonts shipped with ghostscript. I don't know, however, in how far texlive followed the urwcyr fork. If it did, the cyrillic glyphs will be missing. How can we check that? IN this case I can arrange that in the next upload of TeX Live packages we do *not* ship the fonts, but dpend on fonts-urw* and link to the files. That was the idea, after all. I am still considering, by the way, to do what ghostscript did with the fonts and reset the font name and font family fields in the binary files to match those of the gsfonts release... - Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2013-09-03 10:09:28) Dear Jonas and Norbert, Am Montag, den 02.09.2013, 23:33 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-fonts/fonts-urw-base35.git Cloned it, looks fine. having seen that Debian #720906 has been closed, I have updated the debian/copyright file for fonts-urw-base35 in GIT accordingly and consider the package ready now. Since none of the former maintainers of gsfonts and gsfonts-x11, respectively, have raised any concerns, I'd like to ask you to review the package and upload if appropriate. Oh, I am surprised: I thought your intend was to maintain it, not prepare it for others to maintain. If I am to maintain it, I will repackage using CDBS, as that's how I manage to maintain the other 300+ package I am currently involved in. But really I'd prefer not getting involved in this one - I have plenty other packages already, and others in the pipeline. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2013-09-03 17:26:40) I am still considering, by the way, to do what ghostscript did with the fonts and reset the font name and font family fields in the binary files to match those of the gsfonts release... Why? Sounds like a _very_ bad idea to me (no matter if others did similar bad stuff in the past). - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2013-09-03 21:35:11) Am Dienstag, den 03.09.2013, 20:06 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: Why? Sounds like a _very_ bad idea to me (no matter if others did similar bad stuff in the past). Because the font names may be hard coded somewhere (the internal FontName and FontFamily fields, I am not talking about the file names). This is how it looks for the current gsfonts package: ~/Debian/gsfonts-8.11+urwcyr1.0.7~pre44$ grep -a 'FontName' *.pfb a010013l.pfb:/FontName /URWGothicL-Book def a010015l.pfb:/FontName /URWGothicL-Demi def a010033l.pfb:/FontName /URWGothicL-BookObli def [snip] These are the values those fields carry since decades. Now, for the updated release, URW decided to slightly modify those fields: ~/Debian/fonts-urw-base35$ grep -a 'FontName' *.pfb a010013l.pfb:/FontName /URWGothic-Boo def a010015l.pfb:/FontName /URWGothic-Dem def a010033l.pfb:/FontName /URWGothic-BooObl def [snip] I am afraid these FontNames are expected and have even found them hard-coded in texlive. Thus, I am considering to reset these fields back to the values of the gsfonts package. Ghostscript has already done this for the fonts in the Resource/Font directory to circumvent that exact issue. They did also rename the font file names, but this is not what I am talking about. Not all choices made by Ghostscript project are relevant for Debian to follow. Could it be that there is a good reason for the renaming? Might it affect some uses of the official font that we distort it? An example coming to my mind is Postscript files referencing a font without embedding it - produced on a host with the pristine font installed). Is there perhaps a way to symlink old FontName to new one - in TeX and/or in fontconfig or other places? If we hack the font, should we then better change some font identifiers to ensure our flavor of the font is distinct from the pristine one? To me it seems we have a chance of shipping a commercial grade font in its pristine form, and I worry that we ruin that opportunity. I am no expert in this - I just know from my work at a prepress bureau in past millenium that a font is still a font after tumbling it through a font editor, but is no longer the same so should then preferrably have some ID fields changed so as to avoid clashing with the original. I can imagine that the World of fonts is already a huge mess, but would prefer not making it worse. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Quoting Fabian Greffrath (2013-09-03 21:36:04) [Resent to get rid of that typo in gsfo...@packages.debian.org.] Am Dienstag, den 03.09.2013, 10:35 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: Oh, I am surprised: I thought your intend was to maintain it, not prepare it for others to maintain. You misread me! I was just surprised that I announce for about a week now that I am going to replace the gsfonts and gsfonts-x11 packages and did not get a single reply for the respective maintainers. All I requested from you (Norbert and Jonas) was sposoring the upload for that package that I *do* intent to maintain myself. Ah, ok. I don't do sponsoring (believe it is bad for Debian - nothing personal! - I believe teams is the better approach) so good to see that Norbert is helpful with that. If I am to maintain it, I will repackage using CDBS, as that's how I manage to maintain the other 300+ package I am currently involved in. But really I'd prefer not getting involved in this one - I have plenty other packages already, and others in the pipeline. Alright, let's keep it as it is. Is it just me or is there a subtle aggressiveness in your mails? Not intentional! ...Not the first time I come across as aggressive, though, so not surprised: Sorry for the bad impression I make. :-( - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: signature
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Am Dienstag, den 03.09.2013, 22:06 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: Could it be that there is a good reason for the renaming? Honestly, I have no idea. Might it affect some uses of the official font that we distort it? An example coming to my mind is Postscript files referencing a font without embedding it - produced on a host with the pristine font installed). Is there perhaps a way to symlink old FontName to new one - in TeX and/or in fontconfig or other places? It should be no issue for Ghostscript and X11, as they map font names to files via /etc/ghostscript/fontmap.d/10fonts-urw-base35.conf and /etc/X11/fonts/Type1/fonts-urw-base35.scale respectively. It was, however, an issue for fontconfig which works on font names. The rules in /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-metric-aliases.conf did not apply anymore, because they matched on font names. But i was able to fix this with /etc/fonts/conf.d/31-fonts-urw-base35.conf which maps the old font names to the new ones. The only system that also uses this font and that I am not sure about the effect of the changed FontName field is latex. That is why I kindly ask Norbert to test the psnfss package with the new fonts. I will also try to do some test, but will not get to it before Thursday (or even next week). If we hack the font, should we then better change some font identifiers to ensure our flavor of the font is distinct from the pristine one? I would add +gs9.10 to the package version number then. To me it seems we have a chance of shipping a commercial grade font in its pristine form, and I worry that we ruin that opportunity. That's really an important point! Let's see how latex reacts to the mofified font names and then further discuss how to proceed. Good night, - Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Am Dienstag, den 03.09.2013, 10:35 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: Oh, I am surprised: I thought your intend was to maintain it, not prepare it for others to maintain. You misread me! I was just surprised that I announce for about a week now that I am going to replace the gsfonts and gsfonts-x11 packages and did not get a single reply for the respective maintainers. All I requested from you (Norbert and Jonas) was sposoring the upload for that package that I *do* intent to maintain myself. If I am to maintain it, I will repackage using CDBS, as that's how I manage to maintain the other 300+ package I am currently involved in. But really I'd prefer not getting involved in this one - I have plenty other packages already, and others in the pipeline. Alright, let's keep it as it is. Is it just me or is there a subtle aggressiveness in your mails? - Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
[Resent to get rid of that typo in gsfo...@packages.debian.org.] Am Dienstag, den 03.09.2013, 10:35 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: Oh, I am surprised: I thought your intend was to maintain it, not prepare it for others to maintain. You misread me! I was just surprised that I announce for about a week now that I am going to replace the gsfonts and gsfonts-x11 packages and did not get a single reply for the respective maintainers. All I requested from you (Norbert and Jonas) was sposoring the upload for that package that I *do* intent to maintain myself. If I am to maintain it, I will repackage using CDBS, as that's how I manage to maintain the other 300+ package I am currently involved in. But really I'd prefer not getting involved in this one - I have plenty other packages already, and others in the pipeline. Alright, let's keep it as it is. Is it just me or is there a subtle aggressiveness in your mails? - Fabian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Am Dienstag, den 03.09.2013, 20:06 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: Why? Sounds like a _very_ bad idea to me (no matter if others did similar bad stuff in the past). Because the font names may be hard coded somewhere (the internal FontName and FontFamily fields, I am not talking about the file names). This is how it looks for the current gsfonts package: ~/Debian/gsfonts-8.11+urwcyr1.0.7~pre44$ grep -a 'FontName' *.pfb a010013l.pfb:/FontName /URWGothicL-Book def a010015l.pfb:/FontName /URWGothicL-Demi def a010033l.pfb:/FontName /URWGothicL-BookObli def a010035l.pfb:/FontName /URWGothicL-DemiObli def b018012l.pfb:/FontName /URWBookmanL-Ligh def b018015l.pfb:/FontName /URWBookmanL-DemiBold def b018032l.pfb:/FontName /URWBookmanL-LighItal def b018035l.pfb:/FontName /URWBookmanL-DemiBoldItal def c059013l.pfb:/FontName /CenturySchL-Roma def c059016l.pfb:/FontName /CenturySchL-Bold def c059033l.pfb:/FontName /CenturySchL-Ital def c059036l.pfb:/FontName /CenturySchL-BoldItal def d05l.pfb:/FontName /Dingbats def n019003l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanL-Regu def n019004l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanL-Bold def n019023l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanL-ReguItal def n019024l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanL-BoldItal def n019043l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanL-ReguCond def n019044l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanL-BoldCond def n019063l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanL-ReguCondItal def n019064l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanL-BoldCondItal def n021003l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusRomNo9L-Regu def n021004l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusRomNo9L-Medi def n021023l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusRomNo9L-ReguItal def n021024l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusRomNo9L-MediItal def n022003l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusMonL-Regu def n022004l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusMonL-Bold def n022023l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusMonL-ReguObli def n022024l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusMonL-BoldObli def p052003l.pfb:/FontName /URWPalladioL-Roma def p052004l.pfb:/FontName /URWPalladioL-Bold def p052023l.pfb:/FontName /URWPalladioL-Ital def p052024l.pfb:/FontName /URWPalladioL-BoldItal def s05l.pfb:/FontName /StandardSymL def z003034l.pfb:/FontName /URWChanceryL-MediItal def These are the values those fields carry since decades. Now, for the updated release, URW decided to slightly modify those fields: ~/Debian/fonts-urw-base35$ grep -a 'FontName' *.pfb a010013l.pfb:/FontName /URWGothic-Boo def a010015l.pfb:/FontName /URWGothic-Dem def a010033l.pfb:/FontName /URWGothic-BooObl def a010035l.pfb:/FontName /URWGothic-DemObl def b018012l.pfb:/FontName /BookmanURW-Lig def b018015l.pfb:/FontName /BookmanURW-DemBol def b018032l.pfb:/FontName /BookmanURW-LigIta def b018035l.pfb:/FontName /BookmanURW-DemBolIta def c059013l.pfb:/FontName /CenturySchURW-Rom def c059016l.pfb:/FontName /CenturySchURW-Bol def c059033l.pfb:/FontName /CenturySchURW-Ita def c059036l.pfb:/FontName /CenturySchURW-BolIta def d05l.pfb:/FontName /Dingbats def n019003l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSan-Reg def n019004l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSan-Bol def n019023l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSan-Ita def n019024l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSan-BolIta def n019043l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanNar-Reg def n019044l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanNar-Bol def n019063l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanNar-Ita def n019064l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusSanNar-BolIta def n021003l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusRom-Reg def n021004l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusRom-Med def n021023l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusRom-Ita def n021024l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusRom-MedIta def n022003l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusMon-Reg def n022004l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusMon-Bol def n022023l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusMon-Obl def n022024l.pfb:/FontName /NimbusMon-BolObl def p052003l.pfb:/FontName /PalladioURW-Rom def p052004l.pfb:/FontName /PalladioURW-Bol def p052023l.pfb:/FontName /PalladioURW-Ita def p052024l.pfb:/FontName /PalladioURW-BolIta def s05l.pfb:/FontName /StandardSymL def z003034l.pfb:/FontName /ChanceryURW-MedIta def I am afraid these FontNames are expected and have even found them hard-coded in texlive. Thus, I am considering to reset these fields back to the values of the gsfonts package. Ghostscript has already done this for the fonts in the Resource/Font directory to circumvent that exact issue. They did also rename the font file names, but this is not what I am talking about. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
On Di, 03 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote: Why? Sounds like a _very_ bad idea to me (no matter if others did similar bad stuff in the past). Because the font names may be hard coded somewhere (the internal FontName and FontFamily fields, I am not talking about the file names). One more thing - I *agree* (for now at least) that *chanigng the /FontName is *not* a good idea. Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Hi Fabian, many emails, short answer. On Mi, 04 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote: The only system that also uses this font and that I am not sure about the effect of the changed FontName field is latex. That is why I kindly That will break with renaming, since the map files list the *FontName* so changing the FontName needs adjustment of the .map files. That's really an important point! Let's see how latex reacts to the mofified font names and then further discuss how to proceed. For now we can upload. As long as the TeX Live package do not ship symlinks to the new fonts nothing happens. On the usptream (TeX Live) (I am also maintainer there) I will see if we can prepare an updated package for CTAN with the exact fonts, which would solve the problem automatically. Bottom line: Is there anything else before I should sponsor this package? Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Am Montag, den 02.09.2013, 09:08 +0900 schrieb Norbert Preining: Can easily be done. We must not forget to remove the symlinks from texlive-fonts-recommended's copy of these fonts into /usr/share/fonts/type1 then. Let me know where your git (or svn) repo is and I can help on that package. Thanks, it's here: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-fonts/fonts-urw-base35.git -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
On Mo, 02 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote: We must not forget to remove the symlinks from texlive-fonts-recommended's copy of these fonts into /usr/share/fonts/type1 then. Sure. Anything else? http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-fonts/fonts-urw-base35.git Cloned it, looks fine. Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#721521: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#721521: ITP: fonts-urw-base35 -- Set of the 35 PostScript Language Level 2 Base Fonts
Hi Fabian, On So, 01 Sep 2013, Fabian Greffrath wrote: * Package name: fonts-urw-base35 Version : 2:20130628-1 Good idea, thanks for pushing that forward. Finally, I am going to convince the texlive maintainers to replace their copy of these fonts in the texlive-fonts-recommended package (used for the psnfss Can easily be done. Let me know where your git (or svn) repo is and I can help on that package. Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live Debian Developer DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
