Debian Bug report logs - #973617
fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont: New upstream release

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Display info messages

Message #5 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Michele Cane <[email protected]>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[email protected]>

Subject: fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont: New upstream release

Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 16:32:54 +0100

Package: fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont
Version: 1.6.50-3
Severity: wishlist

Dear Maintainer,

Would it be possible to upload the latest upstream release.

Thanks in advance

Best regards

Mike

-- System Information:
Debian Release: bullseye/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 5.9.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU threads)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_US:en
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

-- no debconf information

Message #10 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julian Gilbey <[email protected]>

To: Michele Cane <[email protected]>, [email protected]

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

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 10:51:08 +0000

On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 04:32:54PM +0100, Michele Cane wrote:
> Package: fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont
> Version: 1.6.50-3
> Severity: wishlist
> 
> Dear Maintainer,
> 
> Would it be possible to upload the latest upstream release.
> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
> Best regards
> 
> Mike

+1 from me (and I'm happy to do an NMU if this helps); the newer fonts
are required for the new version of Spyder.

Best wishes,

   Julian

Message #15 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julian Gilbey <[email protected]>

To: [email protected]

Cc: Michele Cane <[email protected]>

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

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 17:06:43 +0000

On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:51:08AM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 04:32:54PM +0100, Michele Cane wrote:
> > Package: fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont
> > Version: 1.6.50-3
> > Severity: wishlist
> > 
> > Dear Maintainer,
> > 
> > Would it be possible to upload the latest upstream release.
> 
> +1 from me (and I'm happy to do an NMU if this helps); the newer fonts
> are required for the new version of Spyder.

Update: I have now prepared an updated package for local use and it is
ready to upload to unstable if wanted.

Key change: The SVG fonts are no longer shipped by upstream with the
webfonts; they are now in a seperate repository.  So my package does
not include the SVG fonts.

Medium change: I've upgraded to 5.5.55.  This is the last version with
a clear license and copyright statement.  The current one is too vague
to pass DFSG, but they are working on it (see
https://github.com/Templarian/MaterialDesign/issues/5777).

Smaller changes: I've updated the debhelper-compat to (= 13), and now
Build-Depends: openstack-pkg-tools; having debian/rules potentially
behave differently depending on whether this package is installed or
not seems quite unwise.  I've also removed one of the lintian
overrides (tabs in copyright file - I replaced the tabs with
spaces!).  The override for preview.html is a bit more problematic: it
is clearly auto-generated from something, but I have no idea how.

My Git repository is on salsa at
https://salsa.debian.org/jdg/fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont

It is a fork of the OpenStack salsa repository, but I encountered some
significant problems using it, most notably, the final commit on the
master branch does not exist in the current upstream GitHub
repository, so it is not possible to cleanly merge the current
upstream.  One could do a git reset --hard HEAD^ on that branch and
then merge the current upstream and force push to salsa.  What I did
instead was to create a new branch called upstream which is now
up-to-date with the upstream GitHub repository, and base my debian
version on it - it is in the branch debian/unstable.  Somewhat sadly,
though, this means that the history of the debian/* files is lost, but
I don't think it's that big a deal.

I can't make a pull request for my work against your repository, as
these two branches are not forked from any of your existing branches
because of the upstream discrepancy.

Finally, there is a piece of BOM removal code in the debian/rules
file.  This seems to be historic, as scss can now happily process the
scss files even with the BOM present.  (I reported it upstream at
https://github.com/Templarian/MaterialDesign/issues/5778)

Best wishes,

   Julian

Message #20 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julian Gilbey <[email protected]>

To: [email protected]

Cc: Michele Cane <[email protected]>, Thomas Goirand <[email protected]>, Michal Arbet <[email protected]>, Ivan Udovichenko <[email protected]>

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

Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2022 15:54:40 +0000

On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 05:06:43PM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:51:08AM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 04:32:54PM +0100, Michele Cane wrote:
> > > Package: fonts-materialdesignicons-webfont
> > > Version: 1.6.50-3
> > > Severity: wishlist
> > > 
> > > Dear Maintainer,
> > > 
> > > Would it be possible to upload the latest upstream release.
> > [...]

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.

Best wishes,

   Julian

Message #25 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julian Gilbey <[email protected]>

To: [email protected]

Cc: Michele Cane <[email protected]>, Thomas Goirand <[email protected]>, Michal Arbet <[email protected]>, Ivan Udovichenko <[email protected]>

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

Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2023 10:00:29 +0000

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

Message #30 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Goirand <[email protected]>

To: Julian Gilbey <[email protected]>, [email protected]

Cc: Michele Cane <[email protected]>

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

Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2023 13:36:08 +0100

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)

Message #35 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julian Gilbey <[email protected]>

To: Thomas Goirand <[email protected]>, [email protected]

Cc: Michele Cane <[email protected]>

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

Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2023 22:09:19 +0000

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

Message #40 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Goirand <[email protected]>

To: Julian Gilbey <[email protected]>, [email protected]

Cc: Michele Cane <[email protected]>

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2023 16:23:19 +0100

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)

Message #45 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julian Gilbey <[email protected]>

To: Thomas Goirand <[email protected]>

Cc: [email protected], Michele Cane <[email protected]>

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2023 17:20:00 +0000

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

Message #50 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julian Gilbey <[email protected]>

To: Thomas Goirand <[email protected]>

Cc: [email protected], Michele Cane <[email protected]>

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2023 19:37:10 +0000

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

Message #55 received at [email protected] (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Julian Gilbey <[email protected]>

To: Thomas Goirand <[email protected]>

Cc: [email protected], Michele Cane <[email protected]>

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

Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2023 22:09:57 +0000

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

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.