Bug#907725: Fwd: Appropriate Section for PCF Fonts
Chris, On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:41 AM Chris Lamb wrote: > > Paul, > > > [..] > > Unfortunately I have very little insight or input to share on fonts or > sections more generally in Debian so I will just have to leave this up > to someone else. Apologies that I could not make progress here. All's well that ends well. I know now that the status quo is just fine with my package. > (I do somehow doubt a mass bug filing would be really appropriate or > welcome, mind you. I'm sure many facing the business end of a mass bug filing would find displeasure with it. :-) I expected that would be the least popular option. But IMHO I felt that if it was a bug, there should be a bug filing against my package, and if it was not a bug, then the lintian message should probably be removed. > Did you consider "fixing" Lintian instead?) Indeed I did, but I was not sure how to approach the issue properly, so I posed the question on debian-policy thinking that might be the best place to start[1]. I only received one response, which indicated that section assignment was within the purview of the FTP Masters[2], so then I followed up with an email to them. In retrospect, I have learned by seeing how Russ phrased this bug report. Chalk one more up for experience... > Again, sorry I can't be of more help. Actually, this bug that Russ filed is being resolved by taking two of the actions that I asked about in the debian-policy mailing: the lintian message will be removed, and "fonts" will be removed from the web page description of the "x11" section, so that certainly helps. Note, however, that there _are_ a few "xfonts-*" fonts in the "x11" section. If you and the rest of the FTP Team agrees, I suppose you could change the lintian message to encourage those packages to set their d/control section to "fonts". Sorry I did not notice this bug until just before it was to be archived. I only saw it while searching to see if another bug had been filed about something else in lintian (concerning "wrong-path-for-interpreter" with the relaxed 4.2.1 policy), and in fact that bug was already filed by someone else and already closed (#908350). Thank you for your detailed responses, Paul Hardy [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2018/06/msg00098.html [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2018/06/msg00099.html
Bug#907725: Fwd: Appropriate Section for PCF Fonts
Paul, > [..] Unfortunately I have very little insight or input to share on fonts or sections more generally in Debian so I will just have to leave this up to someone else. Apologies that I could not make progress here. (I do somehow doubt a mass bug filing would be really appropriate or welcome, mind you. Did you consider "fixing" Lintian instead?) > looking at the NEW queue it is obvious how swamped they are so I > wasn't expecting a rapid response. As an aside, the raw number of the NEW queue is highly misleading as there are huge number of source packages blocked on an identical issue. Again, sorry I can't be of more help. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `-
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
