GNU bug report logs - #40708
gnu: font-gnu-unifont: Unify outputs for fonts.

Previous Next

To reply to this bug, email your comments to 40708 AT debbugs.gnu.org.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Raghav Gururajan <raghavgururajan <at> disroot.org>
To: guix-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: gnu: font-gnu-unifont: Unify outputs for fonts.
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 01:24:41 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

[0002-gnu-font-gnu-unifont-Unify-outputs-for-fonts.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #8 received at 40708 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
To: Raghav Gururajan <raghavgururajan <at> disroot.org>
Cc: 40708 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#40708] gnu: font-gnu-unifont: Unify outputs for fonts.
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 22:30:22 -0400

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 01:24:41AM -0400, Raghav Gururajan wrote:

> From dff7acc350ba6f2e8d6ba3b561fb58acdc1a9c00 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Raghav Gururajan <raghavgururajan <at> disroot.org>
> Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 01:18:41 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] gnu: font-gnu-unifont: Unify outputs for fonts.
> 
> * gnu/package/fonts.scm (font-gnu-unifont): Unify outputs for fonts.
> 
> Let us not over-do multiple outputs. Separating fonts and binaries is
> sane enough. Also, GNU Unifont only have very few fonts in each format.

There is a significant size difference between these outputs. Is there
any prior discussion about what they are used for? Is there something to
gain by combining them?

Message #11 received at 40708 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Raghav Gururajan <raghavgururajan <at> disroot.org>
To: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Cc: 40708 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#40708] gnu: font-gnu-unifont: Unify outputs for fonts.
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 22:44:09 -0400

Hi Leo!

> There is a significant size difference between these outputs. Is there
> any prior discussion about what they are used for? Is there something to
> gain by combining them?

Not sure about discussion, but it is better to combine fonts and keep just
binaries separate. Because if a user install unifont to use in their
applications, not all of them gonna use ttf. Some apps gonna look for otf
formats. It would be confusing to install three different outputs for get all
formats.

Regards,
RG.

Message #14 received at 40708 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
To: Raghav Gururajan <raghavgururajan <at> disroot.org>
Cc: 40708 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#40708] gnu: font-gnu-unifont: Unify outputs for fonts.
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 12:05:38 -0400

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 10:44:09PM -0400, Raghav Gururajan wrote:
> Not sure about discussion, but it is better to combine fonts and keep just
> binaries separate. Because if a user install unifont to use in their
> applications, not all of them gonna use ttf. Some apps gonna look for otf
> formats. It would be confusing to install three different outputs for get all
> formats.

Unifont provides TrueType, PCF, and PSF. It does not have OTF fonts.

Currently, if a user installs 'font-gnu-unifont' they get TrueType
fonts.

On the other hand, the PSF fonts can be used in the bootloader and the
Linux console, and they are only 68 kilobytes, rather than ~22 megabytes
if you combine all the font outputs. I don't see a compelling reason for
that increase.

If the problem is that packages with multiple outputs are confusing, we
should try to improve the UI, and we shouldn't use multiple outputs if
there isn't a good reason. But this is a case where I think it makes
sense.

Message #17 received at 40708 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Raghav Gururajan <raghavgururajan <at> disroot.org>
To: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Cc: 40708 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#40708] gnu: font-gnu-unifont: Unify outputs for fonts.
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 00:54:05 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Leo!

Sorry for the delayed response.

> Unifont provides TrueType, PCF, and PSF. It does not have OTF fonts.

That's correct. I was suggesting a scenario of using more than one type. :-)

> Currently, if a user installs 'font-gnu-unifont' they get TrueType
> fonts.
> 
> On the other hand, the PSF fonts can be used in the bootloader and the
> Linux console, and they are only 68 kilobytes, rather than ~22 megabytes
> if you combine all the font outputs. I don't see a compelling reason for
> that increase.

OK. I think of two reasons: 1) If one installs this package with
suggested patch, the user can use unifont for any purpose as they wish.
It may be application (ttf), console/grub (psf) and/or display server
(pcf). 2) The setup will be consistent with other font packages, where
the package installs fonts with all the types it can provide.

> If the problem is that packages with multiple outputs are confusing, we
> should try to improve the UI, and we shouldn't use multiple outputs if
> there isn't a good reason. But this is a case where I think it makes
> sense.

Improving UI would be good too. Regarding multiple outputs, I think it
is good enough to separate libs, bins and docs. In this packages, we
already separated bin and fonts. I suggest that we shall not separate
fonts further into it's subtypes. That is all I ask. :-)

Regards,
RG.

[0xAE6EF3046D6F7B57.asc (application/pgp-keys, attachment)]

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #20 received at 40708 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Raghav Gururajan <raghavgururajan <at> disroot.org>
To: Leo Famulari <leo <at> famulari.name>
Cc: 40708 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [bug#40708] gnu: font-gnu-unifont: Unify outputs for fonts.
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 01:32:21 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi Leo!

> Sorry for the delayed response.
> 
>> Unifont provides TrueType, PCF, and PSF. It does not have OTF fonts.
> 
> That's correct. I was suggesting a scenario of using more than one type. :-)
> 
>> Currently, if a user installs 'font-gnu-unifont' they get TrueType
>> fonts.
>>
>> On the other hand, the PSF fonts can be used in the bootloader and the
>> Linux console, and they are only 68 kilobytes, rather than ~22 megabytes
>> if you combine all the font outputs. I don't see a compelling reason for
>> that increase.
> 
> OK. I think of two reasons: 1) If one installs this package with
> suggested patch, the user can use unifont for any purpose as they wish.
> It may be application (ttf), console/grub (psf) and/or display server
> (pcf). 2) The setup will be consistent with other font packages, where
> the package installs fonts with all the types it can provide.
> 
>> If the problem is that packages with multiple outputs are confusing, we
>> should try to improve the UI, and we shouldn't use multiple outputs if
>> there isn't a good reason. But this is a case where I think it makes
>> sense.
> 
> Improving UI would be good too. Regarding multiple outputs, I think it
> is good enough to separate libs, bins and docs. In this packages, we
> already separated bin and fonts. I suggest that we shall not separate
> fonts further into it's subtypes. That is all I ask. :-)

I have attached revised patch with this email. :-)

Regards,
RG.

[0001-gnu-font-gnu-unifont-Unify-outputs-for-fonts.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

[0xAE6EF3046D6F7B57.asc (application/pgp-keys, attachment)]

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.