Bug#907725: Fwd: Appropriate Section for PCF Fonts
Russ,
On Sun, Oct 7, 2018 at 3:59 PM Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Paul Hardy writes:
>
> > Thank you for dealing with bug #907725 ("xfonts packages are not using
> > the x11 section in practice"). I was told that it was up to the FTP
> > Masters, so I wrote the below email to them in July. I have not yet
> > received a response, but looking at the NEW queue it is obvious how
> > swamped they are so I wasn't expecting a rapid response.
>
> Just in case you weren't already aware of this little-known corner of how
> the Debian archive works: the section of every package currently in the
> archive is set via the overrides maintained by ftp-master, not by the
> section specified in the packaging files. This is for somewhat esoteric
> and historical reasons, but the package metadata is basically just a hint.
>
> Therefore, even though you didn't get a reply, ftp-master has in a sense
> already made their decision clear: the fonts currently in the archive are
> in the fonts section. If ftp-master had wanted them in a different
> section, that's entirely under their control, and they could have just
> made that change.
Thanks for taking the time to explain this. I was aware of the FTP
package mapping in principle, but do not know the actual mechanics of
it. The lintian message seemed like it might signal some upcoming
change in placing those files, and I wanted to do the right thing
before the freeze.
Take care,
Paul Hardy
Bug#907725: Fwd: Appropriate Section for PCF Fonts
Paul Hardy writes:
> Thank you for dealing with bug #907725 ("xfonts packages are not using
> the x11 section in practice"). I was told that it was up to the FTP
> Masters, so I wrote the below email to them in July. I have not yet
> received a response, but looking at the NEW queue it is obvious how
> swamped they are so I wasn't expecting a rapid response.
Just in case you weren't already aware of this little-known corner of how
the Debian archive works: the section of every package currently in the
archive is set via the overrides maintained by ftp-master, not by the
section specified in the packaging files. This is for somewhat esoteric
and historical reasons, but the package metadata is basically just a hint.
Therefore, even though you didn't get a reply, ftp-master has in a sense
already made their decision clear: the fonts currently in the archive are
in the fonts section. If ftp-master had wanted them in a different
section, that's entirely under their control, and they could have just
made that change.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)
Bug#907725: Fwd: Appropriate Section for PCF Fonts
Chris,
Thank you for dealing with bug #907725 ("xfonts packages are not using
the x11 section in practice"). I was told that it was up to the FTP
Masters, so I wrote the below email to them in July. I have not yet
received a response, but looking at the NEW queue it is obvious how
swamped they are so I wasn't expecting a rapid response.
Sincerely,
Paul Hardy
-- Forwarded message -
From: Paul Hardy
Date: Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 6:40 AM
Subject: Appropriate Section for PCF Fonts
To:
Dear FTP Masters,
I am preparing a new upload of my Unifont package, which includes a
PCF font. I get a lintian warning that the PCF font is not in the "X
Window System" section. The sid section page
(https://packages.debian.org/sid/) mentions fonts as one thing
appropriate for that section.
There is also a "fonts" section of course, and that is where all of
the Unifont fonts are now (and have been for over 10 years).
There are a lot of PCF fonts in the fonts section, and it looks like
almost none in the "X Window" section. Any font today can be used by
more than the X Window System, so my inclination is to keep PCF fonts
in the "fonts" section.
To clarify things with font maintainers, can you either have a mass
bug filing against all PCF fonts that are in the fonts section, or
remove "fonts" from the list of package types suitable for the "X
Window" section. And if you remove fonts from the "X Window" section
list, the current lintian warning (when a PCF font is in the "fonts"
section) should be removed.
If you want to file a mass bug report, this would probably be a good
time, as it would give font package maintainers time to upload new
versions before the buster freeze.
Thank you,
Paul Hardy
Bug#910453: lintian: false positive for package-does-not-use-debhelper-or-cdbs when using blends-dev
On Sun, Oct 07, 2018 at 09:02:30PM +0100, Chris Lamb wrote: > Fixed in Git, pending upload: \o/ thank you! -- cheers, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#910453: lintian: false positive for package-does-not-use-debhelper-or-cdbs when using blends-dev
tags 910453 + pending thanks Fixed in Git, pending upload: https://salsa.debian.org/lintian/lintian/commit/3d2a2e08d6da449f434c85eee0d6cfe55c8cb073 checks/debhelper.pm | 1 + debian/changelog| 4 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+) Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
Processed: Re: lintian: false positive for package-does-not-use-debhelper-or-cdbs when using blends-dev
Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org: > tags 910453 + pending Bug #910453 [lintian] lintian: false positive for package-does-not-use-debhelper-or-cdbs when using blends-dev Added tag(s) pending. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. -- 910453: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=910453 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
