On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 at 12:14, David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] wrote:
I took over the maintenance of urw-fonts to update them to the
version (ghostscript and other packages needs them). However, there are
several problems in versioning of it, and I would like to discuss future
steps for the package.
The current problems:
* we obtain the source archive from Artifex (aka upstream responsible
ghostscript), nowadays they are no longer using the X.Y.Z versioning
system. Instead, they have created a separate git repository for it, and
are doing "snapshot based" releases... Their latest release is:
Do you mean this location? http://downloads.ghostscript.com/public/fonts/
* I asked them if they could go back to X.Y.Z versioning system,
what Chris Liddell replied:
"If you check the versions in the font files, you'll see why I switched to
the release dates.
For several releases they never changed from 1.10, and with the latest
release, they're back to 1.00.
Since this is how URW++ release them to us, there's not a huge amount we
That makes sense.
* and as you can see above, they also changed the name from
'urw-base35' because of this
I also found this:
and they're called urw-core35-fonts here. It might be wise to ask
upstream to clarify before choosing the new package name.
As you can see, the versioning of urw-fonts is total mess right now,
would like to bring back some order to it, but I don't want it to backfire
on me because of how URW++ tends to version their fonts... Here's my
proposed solution to this:
- create a new package for urw-fonts which would obsolete the current
- choose a similar name to the new package - 'urw-base35-fonts' or similar
Good idea, but see above.
1) stick to URW++ based versioning - this would mean (at the moment)
Version == 1.0 and adding snapshot == 20160926
(YYYYMMDD as described in
I'm not sure where your Version == 1.0 comes from. If they're versioned
only by date now, then you have two options. Use Version: 0 in the new
package in anticipation of upstream eventually reintroducing semantic
versioning. Or, Version: YYYYMMDD. Admittedly, the latter looks nicer
and upstream already said they'll stick to it.
2) or map the X.Y.Z versioning to YYYYMMDD from upstream - IOW - X ==
Y == Month, Z == Day (based on the snapshot date in the name of the source
3) or set the Version to some constant (35 for example) and just use the
snapshot to distinguish between older and newer releases.
What does the number "35" mean here, anyway?
I am affraid that I would pick option 1) it could pose problems in
future again, because there's not guarantee that URW++ will follow sane
versioning. So, personally, I would choose 2) or 3).
If you worry about upstream versioning sanity, then stick with
and follow the snapshot versioning guidelines.
There's also one more option, and that is to base the package on
git repository and the snapshot scheme, because we would be using snapshot
string in the package name anyway. And it would also solve one more issue
that upstream is not shipping license files in the archive. (I have already
contacted to correct this.)
The exact location of the source doesn't matter too much as long as it's
official and pristine. I agree it might be better to use the git repo
directly since it contains both the licence indication and its full
I hope the above helps. You might want to review the current font
packaging guidelines as well:
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"