Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1131012 > unrolled thread

Bug#973617: fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont: New upstream release

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Bug#973617: fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont: New upstream release Julian Gilbey <jdg@debian.org> - 2023-01-01 11:10 +0100
    Bug#973617: fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont: New upstream release Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2023-01-01 13:40 +0100
      Bug#973617: fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont: New upstream release Julian Gilbey <jdg@debian.org> - 2023-01-01 23:20 +0100
        Bug#973617: fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont: New upstream release Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2023-01-02 16:30 +0100
          Bug#973617: fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont: New upstream release Julian Gilbey <jdg@debian.org> - 2023-01-02 18:30 +0100
            Bug#973617: fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont: New upstream release Julian Gilbey <jdg@debian.org> - 2023-01-02 20:40 +0100
              Bug#973617: fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont: New upstream release Julian Gilbey <jdg@debian.org> - 2023-01-02 23:20 +0100

#1131012 — Bug#973617: fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont: New upstream release

On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 03:54:40PM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> There has been no progress or follow-up on this bug report in over two
> years.
> 
> I also recently noticed that some of the icons in the existing font
> are brand icons which should be removed because of licensing issues.
> Also, this package is not built from source - it is the precompiled
> fonts build using @mdi/font-build.
> 
> My proposal is to repackage this using @mdi/font-build to actually
> build the font from source, removing the brand icons first.  I'll NMU
> this when the required node packages are packaged and have reached
> unstable.  If you'd prefer me to take the package over, or to add
> myself as an uploader, I'm also happy to do that.  I'll do the work in
> a new repository since the existing one (as already noted earlier in
> this thread) is too muddled to really build on it.

Dear all,

I have now uploaded a package (version 7.1.96-1) to DELAYED/7-day,
closing this bug; it will also have to go through NEW processing
before it is accepted into unstable.  You can see the package at its
new salsa location
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont

I realise that with the lack of response to this bug report, I should
have gone through the salvage process; I will begin that now with a
separate bug report.

Best wishes,

   Julian

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1131023

On 1/1/23 11:00, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 03:54:40PM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>> There has been no progress or follow-up on this bug report in over two
>> years.
>>
>> I also recently noticed that some of the icons in the existing font
>> are brand icons which should be removed because of licensing issues.
>> Also, this package is not built from source - it is the precompiled
>> fonts build using @mdi/font-build.
>>
>> My proposal is to repackage this using @mdi/font-build to actually
>> build the font from source, removing the brand icons first.  I'll NMU
>> this when the required node packages are packaged and have reached
>> unstable.  If you'd prefer me to take the package over, or to add
>> myself as an uploader, I'm also happy to do that.  I'll do the work in
>> a new repository since the existing one (as already noted earlier in
>> this thread) is too muddled to really build on it.
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I have now uploaded a package (version 7.1.96-1) to DELAYED/7-day,
> closing this bug; it will also have to go through NEW processing
> before it is accepted into unstable.  You can see the package at its
> new salsa location
> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont
> 
> I realise that with the lack of response to this bug report, I should
> have gone through the salvage process; I will begin that now with a
> separate bug report.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
>     Julian

Hi Julian,

I'm ok to add you as uploader if you like, but I would like the package 
to stay in the OpenStack team. I have given you write access to the Git 
(as maintainer).

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1131183

On Sun, Jan 01, 2023 at 01:36:08PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Hi Julian,
> 
> I'm ok to add you as uploader if you like, but I would like the package to
> stay in the OpenStack team. I have given you write access to the Git (as
> maintainer).

Hi Thomas,

Thanks for that; happy to accept the offer!  I do have some questions
and thoughts.

(1) As I noted earlier in this report, I was a little confused by the
current Salsa repository, but am becoming less so.  There are numerous
branches there, and none of them match the current version in unstable
(they only have 1.6.50-2).  I'm assuming the branch names match the
OpenStack release names (except for the debian/unstable and master
branches).  I would suggest modifying the repository into a
git-buildpackage (gbp) setup with upstream, pristine-tar and
debian/unstable branches, with debian/[openstack-code-name] branches
being used as they are currently.

(2) You said that newer versions of MDI break Horizon.  I've just
looked in some detail at python3-xstatic-mdi, which is the only
package that depends on fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont and is
maintained by the OpenStack team.  Am I correct about this?  I see
that it is a plugin for python3-xstatic, and it appears to be quite
straightforward.  Now I am aware of the problem, I don't see a good
reason for removing MDI version 1.6.50 from Debian as the effort
required to make sure newer versions work correctly with Horizon
doesn't seem worth it.

However, we do need newer versions of MDI for other packages.  (I will
discuss this with the tulip maintainers; their code seems to require
version 4.9.95 of the icons...; on the other hand, searx-admin is
fine.)  So can I propose the following solution which will (all being
well!) work for both OpenStack and the other users of the MDI font:

* My version of the package in salsa currently produces the following
  binary packages:

  fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont - the current version of the font (7.x)
  fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont-v5 - version 5.9.55 of the font
  fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont-v6 - version 6.9.96 of the font
  fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont-v7 - the latest version 7 of the font

  These binary packages store the fonts in
  /usr/share/fonts/*/materialdesignicons-webfont/ (as in the current
  version of the package), and has symlinks to them in
  /usr/share/fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont/fonts; the different
  versions are distinguished by filename and fontname (with only the
  current version being called "materialdesignicons"; the others are
  called "materialdesigniconsv5" etc.).

* We would then add one further binary:

  fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont-v1 - version 1.6.50 of the font

  This package would provide the current contents of
  /usr/share/fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont in
  /usr/share/fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont/1.6.50
  (including the css, scss, fonts directories).  To avoid fontname
  conflicts, the contents of the fonts directory would *not* be
  symlinks to /usr/share/fonts but would be the actual fonts
  themselves.

  The only changes then required to the python-xstatic-mdi package for
  this to work are to modify debianize.patch from

+BASE_DIR = '/usr/share/fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont/'

to

+BASE_DIR = '/usr/share/fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont/1.6.50/'

  and to depend on fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont-v1 instead of
  fonts-materialdesignicons.

This way, everyone will be happy (I hope!).  The only small issue with
this solution is that the v1.6.50 fonts are not available in
/usr/share/fonts, but I don't think that is a problem as they are only
required by this one package (python3-xstatic-mdi), and the v1.6.50
fonts are not being provided as general-use fonts.


If you're OK with this idea, please could you either give me access to
the python-xstatic-mdi salsa repository or make these two changes
yourself once I have made the fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont
changes?  (These will have to wait for node-webfont to be accepted
into unstable and then the modified fonts-materialdesngicons-webfont
changes to pass through NEW as well, though that is likely to be
quick.)

In the meantime, I'll drop a line to the tulip maintainers....

Best wishes,

   Julian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1131282

On 1/1/23 23:09, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> (1) As I noted earlier in this report, I was a little confused by the
> current Salsa repository, but am becoming less so.  There are numerous
> branches there, and none of them match the current version in unstable
> (they only have 1.6.50-2).  I'm assuming the branch names match the
> OpenStack release names (except for the debian/unstable and master
> branches).

That's correct. But you don't need to care. The only thing you need to 
know, is that the current default branch is the one you should push to. 
Currently, that's debian/zed.

> I would suggest modifying the repository into a
> git-buildpackage (gbp) setup with upstream, pristine-tar and
> debian/unstable branches, with debian/[openstack-code-name] branches
> being used as they are currently.

There's no such thing as pristine-tar in the OpenStack packaging. The 
workflow is described here:

https://wiki.debian.org/OpenStack/PackageUpdate#Import_upstream_changes_to_the_debian.2FOSRELEASE_branch

> (2) You said that newer versions of MDI break Horizon.  I've just
> looked in some detail at python3-xstatic-mdi, which is the only
> package that depends on fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont and is
> maintained by the OpenStack team.  Am I correct about this?

Yes.

> However, we do need newer versions of MDI for other packages.  (I will
> discuss this with the tulip maintainers; their code seems to require
> version 4.9.95 of the icons...; on the other hand, searx-admin is
> fine.)  So can I propose the following solution which will (all being
> well!) work for both OpenStack and the other users of the MDI font:
> 
> * My version of the package in salsa currently produces the following
>    binary packages:
> 
>    fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont - the current version of the font (7.x)
>    fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont-v5 - version 5.9.55 of the font
>    fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont-v6 - version 6.9.96 of the font
>    fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont-v7 - the latest version 7 of the font
> 
>    These binary packages store the fonts in
>    /usr/share/fonts/*/materialdesignicons-webfont/ (as in the current
>    version of the package), and has symlinks to them in
>    /usr/share/fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont/fonts; the different
>    versions are distinguished by filename and fontname (with only the
>    current version being called "materialdesignicons"; the others are
>    called "materialdesigniconsv5" etc.).
> 
> * We would then add one further binary:
> 
>    fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont-v1 - version 1.6.50 of the font
> 
>    This package would provide the current contents of
>    /usr/share/fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont in
>    /usr/share/fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont/1.6.50
>    (including the css, scss, fonts directories).  To avoid fontname
>    conflicts, the contents of the fonts directory would *not* be
>    symlinks to /usr/share/fonts but would be the actual fonts
>    themselves.
> 
>    The only changes then required to the python-xstatic-mdi package for
>    this to work are to modify debianize.patch from
> 
> +BASE_DIR = '/usr/share/fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont/'
> 
> to
> 
> +BASE_DIR = '/usr/share/fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont/1.6.50/'
> 
>    and to depend on fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont-v1 instead of
>    fonts-materialdesignicons.

I would very much prefer if this could be avoided, for example using 
update-alternative (or something similar), to avoid breaking anyone 
(changing the path is always disruptive). But I'm ok with this solution 
if you think that's the easiest way forward.

> This way, everyone will be happy (I hope!).  The only small issue with
> this solution is that the v1.6.50 fonts are not available in
> /usr/share/fonts, but I don't think that is a problem as they are only
> required by this one package (python3-xstatic-mdi), and the v1.6.50
> fonts are not being provided as general-use fonts.

Maybe other people are using this package (ie: things not packaged in 
Debian from simple Debian users...). You'd be breaking them. But it's 
probably ok...

> If you're OK with this idea, please could you either give me access to
> the python-xstatic-mdi salsa repository or make these two changes
> yourself once I have made the fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont
> changes?

I've added you as maintainer, feel free to push directly to this repo. 
Please note that on every push, packages are automatically backported to 
the current stable. You may join #debian-openstack-commits to see the 
build result.

> (These will have to wait for node-webfont to be accepted
> into unstable and then the modified fonts-materialdesngicons-webfont
> changes to pass through NEW as well, though that is likely to be
> quick.)
> 
> In the meantime, I'll drop a line to the tulip maintainers....
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
>     Julian

Thanks Julian, for the work and contribution,

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1131306

On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 04:23:19PM +0100, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 1/1/23 23:09, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > (1) As I noted earlier in this report, I was a little confused by the
> > current Salsa repository, but am becoming less so.  There are numerous
> > branches there, and none of them match the current version in unstable
> > (they only have 1.6.50-2).  I'm assuming the branch names match the
> > OpenStack release names (except for the debian/unstable and master
> > branches).
> 
> That's correct. But you don't need to care. The only thing you need to know,
> is that the current default branch is the one you should push to. Currently,
> that's debian/zed.

Excellent!

> > I would suggest modifying the repository into a
> > git-buildpackage (gbp) setup with upstream, pristine-tar and
> > debian/unstable branches, with debian/[openstack-code-name] branches
> > being used as they are currently.
> 
> There's no such thing as pristine-tar in the OpenStack packaging. The
> workflow is described here:
> 
> https://wiki.debian.org/OpenStack/PackageUpdate#Import_upstream_changes_to_the_debian.2FOSRELEASE_branch

OK, I'll take a read of that.

> > (2) You said that newer versions of MDI break Horizon.  I've just
> > looked in some detail at python3-xstatic-mdi, which is the only
> > package that depends on fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont and is
> > maintained by the OpenStack team.  Am I correct about this?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > However, we do need newer versions of MDI for other packages.  (I will
> > discuss this with the tulip maintainers; their code seems to require
> > version 4.9.95 of the icons...; on the other hand, searx-admin is
> > fine.)  So can I propose the following solution which will (all being
> > well!) work for both OpenStack and the other users of the MDI font:
> > [...]
> > 
> >    The only changes then required to the python-xstatic-mdi package for
> >    this to work are to modify debianize.patch from
> > 
> > +BASE_DIR = '/usr/share/fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont/'
> > 
> > to
> > 
> > +BASE_DIR = '/usr/share/fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont/1.6.50/'
> > 
> >    and to depend on fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont-v1 instead of
> >    fonts-materialdesignicons.
> 
> I would very much prefer if this could be avoided, for example using
> update-alternative (or something similar), to avoid breaking anyone
> (changing the path is always disruptive). But I'm ok with this solution if
> you think that's the easiest way forward.

I think the biggest issue is that there can only be one system font
called "materialdesignicons", and to have a version which is ancient
and never being updated seems a little un-Debian-like.  Since within
Debian, only this one package uses this version, I don't think my
proposed solution would be bad.  But it turns out there is a separate
difficulty - see below.

I've also been wondering why updating MDI breaks Horizon, and in what
way.  There is a DFSG issue with version 1.6.50 of the MDI font: it is
not distributed in source form, but rather in a compiled form.
Various tools were used to generate the different font formats, for
example.  So if there's a way to drop 1.6.50 from Debian (probably not
for bookworm - it's a bit too close, but for bookworm+1), that would
be great.

It seems that there's only one place in horizon (source) where the MDI
fonts are referenced (great encapsulation!!):
  openstack_dashboard/themes/material/static/horizon/_icons.scss

If I understand it correctly, this scss file replaces each FontAwesome
4.7 icon in the icon-swap list (eg "asterisk") with an MDI icon (in
this case "star").  My guess is that the problem with upgrading is
that two icons in that list no longer appear in the latest version of
MDI: "settings" has been replaced by "cog" (version 5.0.45) and
"desktop-mac" has recently been removed (version 7.0.96) with
"monitor" (already present in 1.6.50) recommended as a replacement.
So it might be that the following two-line patch:

-  cog: 'settings',
-  desktop: 'desktop-mac',
+  cog: 'cog',
+  desktop: 'monitor',

would be enough to allow horizon to use the current MDI fonts.  But I
don't use OpenStack myself, so I would certainly ask you or someone
else in the OpenStack team to test such a patch before releasing it
into the wild!

> > This way, everyone will be happy (I hope!).  The only small issue with
> > this solution is that the v1.6.50 fonts are not available in
> > /usr/share/fonts, but I don't think that is a problem as they are only
> > required by this one package (python3-xstatic-mdi), and the v1.6.50
> > fonts are not being provided as general-use fonts.
> 
> Maybe other people are using this package (ie: things not packaged in Debian
> from simple Debian users...). You'd be breaking them. But it's probably
> ok...

True, but we constantly upgrade packages in Debian to "the latest and
greatest" upstream versions.  And there's this bug report specifically
requesting an upgrade....

> > If you're OK with this idea, please could you either give me access to
> > the python-xstatic-mdi salsa repository or make these two changes
> > yourself once I have made the fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont
> > changes?
> 
> I've added you as maintainer, feel free to push directly to this repo.
> Please note that on every push, packages are automatically backported to the
> current stable. You may join #debian-openstack-commits to see the build
> result.

Now this may be tricky, because building the proposed new version of
the fonts requires the new node-webfont package; would that be
backported as well?  (BTW, I've just pushed a new version to my
experimental repository at
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont
which generates a version 1.6.50 package as well as the newer ones.)

> Thanks Julian, for the work and contribution,
> 
> Cheers,

:-)

   Julian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1131337

On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 05:20:00PM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> [...]
> > 
> > I've added you as maintainer, feel free to push directly to this repo.
> > Please note that on every push, packages are automatically backported to the
> > current stable. You may join #debian-openstack-commits to see the build
> > result.
> 
> Now this may be tricky, because building the proposed new version of
> the fonts requires the new node-webfont package; would that be
> backported as well?  (BTW, I've just pushed a new version to my
> experimental repository at
> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont
> which generates a version 1.6.50 package as well as the newer ones.)

I just tried building node-webfont on bullseye with bullseye-backports
and it's not happy:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 sbuild-build-depends-main-dummy : Depends: node-svg2ttf but it is not installable
                                   Depends: node-nunjucks (>= 3.2.3) but it is not installable
                                   Depends: node-parse-json (>= 5.2.0) but 5.1.0+~cs5.1.6-2 is to be installed
                                   Depends: node-xml2js (>= 0.4.23) but it is not going to be installed
                                   Depends: node-jasmine but it is not installable

So at least 4 (and quite possibly more) nodejs packages would have to
be backported to bullseye-backports to be able to do this.
(node-xml2js is too old in stable for this package.)

Best wishes,

   Julian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1131358

On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 07:37:10PM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I just tried building node-webfont on bullseye with bullseye-backports
> and it's not happy:
> 
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>  sbuild-build-depends-main-dummy : Depends: node-svg2ttf but it is not installable
>                                    Depends: node-nunjucks (>= 3.2.3) but it is not installable
>                                    Depends: node-parse-json (>= 5.2.0) but 5.1.0+~cs5.1.6-2 is to be installed
>                                    Depends: node-xml2js (>= 0.4.23) but it is not going to be installed
>                                    Depends: node-jasmine but it is not installable
> 
> So at least 4 (and quite possibly more) nodejs packages would have to
> be backported to bullseye-backports to be able to do this.
> (node-xml2js is too old in stable for this package.)

Another update:

* node-svg2ttf: requires node-xmldom to be backported
  * node-xmldom: builds with bullseye-backports
* node-nunjucks: builds with bullseye-backports
* node-parse-json: builds with bullseye-backports
* node-xml2js: builds with bullseye-backports
* node-jasmine: has the dependencies require to build, but the build
   fails on one of the tests

So it may only be six packages which require backporting in order to
backport node-webfont (once it reaches testing), but node-jasmine
might well require some additional help, perhaps from the maintainer;
it might be that it has a versioned dependency that has not been
declared in the build-depends.

Best wishes,

   Julian

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist

csiph-web