Bug#868496: debian-policy: Please Clarify Need for update-fonts-dir in postinst and postrm Scripts

[Osamu Aoki]

Hi,

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:38:33PM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
> I am adding the maintainer of the New Maintainer's Guide and the Guide
> for Debian Maintainers, Osamu Aoki, to this discussion.  I would like
> to reassign this wishlist bug to one of those packages if Osamu
> agrees.

Reassin to "Guide for Debian Maintainers"
(But not to "New Maintainer's Guide")

I will consider add a note to data package.

> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Paul Hardy  wrote:
> > Sean,
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Sean Whitton  
> > wrote:
> >> Hello Paul,
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 04:28:03PM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
> >>> My intention was to point someone new to packaging fonts in Debian in
> >>> the direction of an easy path, rather than leaving it up to that
> >>> person to find things out the hard way--or worse yet, doing things the
> >>> hard way.
> >>
> >> Right.  It would be good to have that somewhere ...
> >>
> >>> How about a footnote pointing to
> >>> https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts/PackagingPolicy?  That document is not
> >>> formal policy, but it would make life easier for someone if they are
> >>> new to packaging fonts.
> >>>
> >>> Alternatively, do you think this bug report should get reassigned to
> >>> the New Maintainer's Guide and be addressed as a request there?  The
> >>> scope of that guide is mainly to walk someone through creating a
> >>> simple binary package.
> >>
> >> ... and the new maintainer's guide seems like a decent place.

But not the right structure to address extension as I will be talking at
debconf17.
  https://debconf17.debconf.org/users/osamu/

The maint-guide package used to serve as the “tutorial” for the Debian
packaging but recently is becoming out of sync with the modern Debian
packaging practices and it lacks practical packaging examples. I have
created the debmake package which is a Multi-arch aware packaging helper
and rewrite packaging tutorial as the debmake-doc package. I would like
to discuss how to improve this situation.

I would also like to discuss how to make this new tutorial document to
become accepted and also get more people to make similar documentation
efforts by making documentation work more attractive for the new
contributors. There are both merits and demerits with lowering entry
barriers. I would like to elaborate on ideas to encourage new
contributors.

Also, I would like to raise awareness to the practical challenges of
maintaining DEP-5 compliant debian/copyright file when updating the
package with changing licenses.
  
> >> How about adding a section to that guide listing links to packaging
> >> guides for specific types of packages, such as fonts?
> >
> > I can certainly do that if the maintainer of that package would like
> > to add such a section.  I have filed a bug report with a set of
> > proposed patches for maint-guide, and would wait for that to get
> > processed first (with my patches accepted or rejected).
> 
> Osamu:
> Do you think that mentioning font packaging in the Guide for Debian
> Maintainers or the New Maintainer's Guide is appropriate?  If so, I
> will reassign this bug to the package you prefer.  I think just a
> pointer to https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts/PackagingPolicy with a brief
> explanation will be enough, with the expectation that the Fonts Wiki
> page will always have the most current information.  If you do not
> think that information about packaging fonts belongs in either guide,
> let me know and I will try to come up with some other idea.
>
> As of today, the New Maintainer's Guide is still required reading for
> New Maintainers, but the Guide for Debian Maintainers is not required
> reading.  I will assume that is going to change in the future with
> Osamu's focus on the latter document going forward if font packaging
> information is added there.  Otherwise, someone wanting to package
> fonts for Debian for the first time could still wind up having to hunt
> for and hopefully be lucky enough to find the Fonts Wiki page to learn
> how.

I will update "New Maintainer's Guide" soon to deprecate it and
recommend reading "the Guide for Debian Maintainers".  (Still
translation presence may keep its worth for a while.)

Osamu

Bug#868496: debian-policy: Please Clarify Need for update-fonts-dir in postinst and postrm Scripts

[Paul Hardy]

I am adding the maintainer of the New Maintainer's Guide and the Guide
for Debian Maintainers, Osamu Aoki, to this discussion.  I would like
to reassign this wishlist bug to one of those packages if Osamu
agrees.

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 6:59 PM, Paul Hardy  wrote:
> Sean,
>
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Sean Whitton  
> wrote:
>> Hello Paul,
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 04:28:03PM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
>>> My intention was to point someone new to packaging fonts in Debian in
>>> the direction of an easy path, rather than leaving it up to that
>>> person to find things out the hard way--or worse yet, doing things the
>>> hard way.
>>
>> Right.  It would be good to have that somewhere ...
>>
>>> How about a footnote pointing to
>>> https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts/PackagingPolicy?  That document is not
>>> formal policy, but it would make life easier for someone if they are
>>> new to packaging fonts.
>>>
>>> Alternatively, do you think this bug report should get reassigned to
>>> the New Maintainer's Guide and be addressed as a request there?  The
>>> scope of that guide is mainly to walk someone through creating a
>>> simple binary package.
>>
>> ... and the new maintainer's guide seems like a decent place.
>>
>> How about adding a section to that guide listing links to packaging
>> guides for specific types of packages, such as fonts?
>
> I can certainly do that if the maintainer of that package would like
> to add such a section.  I have filed a bug report with a set of
> proposed patches for maint-guide, and would wait for that to get
> processed first (with my patches accepted or rejected).

Osamu:
Do you think that mentioning font packaging in the Guide for Debian
Maintainers or the New Maintainer's Guide is appropriate?  If so, I
will reassign this bug to the package you prefer.  I think just a
pointer to https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts/PackagingPolicy with a brief
explanation will be enough, with the expectation that the Fonts Wiki
page will always have the most current information.  If you do not
think that information about packaging fonts belongs in either guide,
let me know and I will try to come up with some other idea.


As of today, the New Maintainer's Guide is still required reading for
New Maintainers, but the Guide for Debian Maintainers is not required
reading.  I will assume that is going to change in the future with
Osamu's focus on the latter document going forward if font packaging
information is added there.  Otherwise, someone wanting to package
fonts for Debian for the first time could still wind up having to hunt
for and hopefully be lucky enough to find the Fonts Wiki page to learn
how.

Thank you,


Paul Hardy

Bug#868496: debian-policy: Please Clarify Need for update-fonts-dir in postinst and postrm Scripts

[Paul Hardy]

Sean,

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Sean Whitton  wrote:
> Hello Paul,
>
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 04:28:03PM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
>> My intention was to point someone new to packaging fonts in Debian in
>> the direction of an easy path, rather than leaving it up to that
>> person to find things out the hard way--or worse yet, doing things the
>> hard way.
>
> Right.  It would be good to have that somewhere ...
>
>> How about a footnote pointing to
>> https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts/PackagingPolicy?  That document is not
>> formal policy, but it would make life easier for someone if they are
>> new to packaging fonts.
>>
>> Alternatively, do you think this bug report should get reassigned to
>> the New Maintainer's Guide and be addressed as a request there?  The
>> scope of that guide is mainly to walk someone through creating a
>> simple binary package.
>
> ... and the new maintainer's guide seems like a decent place.
>
> How about adding a section to that guide listing links to packaging
> guides for specific types of packages, such as fonts?

I can certainly do that if the maintainer of that package would like
to add such a section.  I have filed a bug report with a set of
proposed patches for maint-guide, and would wait for that to get
processed first (with my patches accepted or rejected).

Take care,


Paul Hardy

Bug#868496: debian-policy: Please Clarify Need for update-fonts-dir in postinst and postrm Scripts

[Sean Whitton]

Hello Paul,

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 04:28:03PM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
> My intention was to point someone new to packaging fonts in Debian in
> the direction of an easy path, rather than leaving it up to that
> person to find things out the hard way--or worse yet, doing things the
> hard way.

Right.  It would be good to have that somewhere ...

> How about a footnote pointing to
> https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts/PackagingPolicy?  That document is not
> formal policy, but it would make life easier for someone if they are
> new to packaging fonts.
> 
> Alternatively, do you think this bug report should get reassigned to
> the New Maintainer's Guide and be addressed as a request there?  The
> scope of that guide is mainly to walk someone through creating a
> simple binary package.

... and the new maintainer's guide seems like a decent place.

How about adding a section to that guide listing links to packaging
guides for specific types of packages, such as fonts?

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#868496: debian-policy: Please Clarify Need for update-fonts-dir in postinst and postrm Scripts

[Paul Hardy]

Control: severity 868496 wishlist

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Sean Whitton  wrote:
> Hello Paul,
>
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 02:56:24AM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
>> Then would you consider it acceptable to make some mention in a
>> footnote to the effect that with the latest "dh" build tools, it isn't
>> necessary to have postinst and postrm scripts in the debian directory
>> for this purpose?  Because otherwise, someone who did not already know
>> about this could misunderstand the implications of this requirement
>> and create redundant postinst and postrm scripts.
>
> The problem is that if we think there should be footnotes explaining
> that there is a dh_* tool that takes care of the requirement, we would
> then need new footnotes to almost every section of Policy.  That would
> be a bad idea.

Yes, I could see that spiraling out of control.

My intention was to point someone new to packaging fonts in Debian in
the direction of an easy path, rather than leaving it up to that
person to find things out the hard way--or worse yet, doing things the
hard way.

How about a footnote pointing to
https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts/PackagingPolicy?  That document is not
formal policy, but it would make life easier for someone if they are
new to packaging fonts.

Alternatively, do you think this bug report should get reassigned to
the New Maintainer's Guide and be addressed as a request there?  The
scope of that guide is mainly to walk someone through creating a
simple binary package.

I have downgraded this bug to "wishlist" because it is not an actual
issue with Debian Policy.

Thanks,


Paul Hardy

Bug#868496: debian-policy: Please Clarify Need for update-fonts-dir in postinst and postrm Scripts

[Sean Whitton]

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 12:21:40PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> No, the policy doesn't talk about dh_* and other helpers (except in
> footnotes).

Right.  In a sense, Policy is the reference against which such helpers
are developed.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#868496: debian-policy: Please Clarify Need for update-fonts-dir in postinst and postrm Scripts

[Sean Whitton]

Hello Paul,

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 02:56:24AM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
> Then would you consider it acceptable to make some mention in a
> footnote to the effect that with the latest "dh" build tools, it isn't
> necessary to have postinst and postrm scripts in the debian directory
> for this purpose?  Because otherwise, someone who did not already know
> about this could misunderstand the implications of this requirement
> and create redundant postinst and postrm scripts.

The problem is that if we think there should be footnotes explaining
that there is a dh_* tool that takes care of the requirement, we would
then need new footnotes to almost every section of Policy.  That would
be a bad idea.

-- 
Sean Whitton


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#868496: debian-policy: Please Clarify Need for update-fonts-dir in postinst and postrm Scripts

[Paul Hardy]

Andrey,

On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 12:21 AM, Andrey Rahmatullin  wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 09:57:32PM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
>> "Font packages must invoke update-fonts-dir on each directory into
>> which they install fonts.  This invocation must occur in both the
>> postinst (for all arguments) and postrm (for all arguments except
>> upgrade) scripts."
>>
>> Strictly speaking this is correct, but it could be taken to mean that
>> a font packager must have postinst and postrm scripts in their
>> package's debian directory.  That is no longer necessary.  I suggest
>> appending the following to the above paragraph:
>>
>> "Note: if your build scripts invoke dh_installxfonts, this is handled
>> automatically and it is not necessary to create postinst or postrm
>> files in your debian directory for this purpose.  See
>> dh_installxfonts(1)."
> No, the policy doesn't talk about dh_* and other helpers (except in
> footnotes).

Then would you consider it acceptable to make some mention in a
footnote to the effect that with the latest "dh" build tools, it isn't
necessary to have postinst and postrm scripts in the debian directory
for this purpose?  Because otherwise, someone who did not already know
about this could misunderstand the implications of this requirement
and create redundant postinst and postrm scripts.

Thanks,


Paul Hardy

Bug#868496: debian-policy: Please Clarify Need for update-fonts-dir in postinst and postrm Scripts

[Andrey Rahmatullin]

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 09:57:32PM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote:
> "Font packages must invoke update-fonts-dir on each directory into
> which they install fonts.  This invocation must occur in both the
> postinst (for all arguments) and postrm (for all arguments except
> upgrade) scripts."
> 
> Strictly speaking this is correct, but it could be taken to mean that
> a font packager must have postinst and postrm scripts in their
> package's debian directory.  That is no longer necessary.  I suggest
> appending the following to the above paragraph:
> 
> "Note: if your build scripts invoke dh_installxfonts, this is handled
> automatically and it is not necessary to create postinst or postrm
> files in your debian directory for this purpose.  See
> dh_installxfonts(1)."
No, the policy doesn't talk about dh_* and other helpers (except in
footnotes).

-- 
WBR, wRAR


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#868496: debian-policy: Please Clarify Need for update-fonts-dir in postinst and postrm Scripts

[Paul Hardy]

Package: debian-policy
Version: 4.0.0.4
Severity: minor

--

The Debian Policy Manual, Section 11.8.5, "Packages providing fonts",
states in item 12:

"Font packages must invoke update-fonts-dir on each directory into
which they install fonts.  This invocation must occur in both the
postinst (for all arguments) and postrm (for all arguments except
upgrade) scripts."

Strictly speaking this is correct, but it could be taken to mean that
a font packager must have postinst and postrm scripts in their
package's debian directory.  That is no longer necessary.  I suggest
appending the following to the above paragraph:

"Note: if your build scripts invoke dh_installxfonts, this is handled
automatically and it is not necessary to create postinst or postrm
files in your debian directory for this purpose.  See
dh_installxfonts(1)."

The man page for dh_installxfonts(1) states:

"Your package should depend on xfonts-utils so that the update-fonts-*
commands are available. (This program adds that dependency to
${misc:Depends}.)

"This program automatically generates the postinst and postrm commands
needed to register X fonts. These commands are inserted into the
maintainer scripts by dh_installdeb. See dh_installdeb(1) for an
explanation of how this works."

See also the Debian Fonts Packaging Policy page at
https://wiki.debian.org/Fonts/PackagingPolicy.

The new "dh $@" rules format invokes dh_installxfonts on a font
package at the appropriate time.

Thank you,


Paul Hardy