fontforge-20150228

[Fernando de Oliveira]

Now 20150228. See comment 25

​https://codeload.github.com/fontforge/fontforge/tar.gz/20141230

Downloads 20141230.tar.gz with wget and fontforge-20141230.tar.gz with firefox

BLFS Package Currency Check - 2015-01-10 05:45:00 GMT is obtaining 2014-12-31, not 30.

I hope we are talking about the same release.

​https://github.com/fontforge/fontforge/releases

[Fernando de Oliveira]

Each release they change the file name?

[Fernando de Oliveira]

Replying to fo:

Each release they change the file name?

And URL?

[bdubbs@…]

Upstream probably doesn't know that wget and ff give different names. We can host on anduin if you think it better.

Do you want me to contact upstream?

[Fernando de Oliveira]

Replying to bdubbs@…:

Upstream probably doesn't know that wget and ff give different names. We can host on anduin if you think it better.

There is already a warning in the page about the filename, perhaps we could save space at anduin. But I will do what you think is better (following below)

Do you want me to contact upstream?

however, if you contact them (please do it!), the would be probably more more satisfactory for us, for the users and for them.

I will hold this to see if we have a positive reply.

Thanks.

[bdubbs@…]

Upon further review,

​https://github.com/fontforge/fontforge/releases/download/20141230/fontforge-20141230.tar.gz

gets the right file name for me with wget. The new one is really large: 253M. The 20141126 version was only 120M. I have not unpacked it yet to see what changed.

7717df00b9832b8d1c2c9ea10f3ae30c fontforge-20141230.tar.gz

[Fernando de Oliveira]

Very good new!

Thanks again!

Would you like to take this or any of the others assigned to me? Will only start working on them tomorrow.

[Fernando de Oliveira]

s/Very good new/Very good news/

[Fernando de Oliveira]

Apologies if I am dumb, but...

Make does not complete for ​https://github.com/fontforge/fontforge/releases/download/20141230/fontforge-20141230.tar.gz.

Build is successful for

wget -c https://github.com/fontforge/fontforge/archive/20141230.tar.gz \
-O fontforge-20141230.tar.gz
82369a1125bc7800806d28a18f3c11de  fontforge-20141230.tar.gz

Build is also successful for

git clone https://github.com/fontforge/fontforge.git fontforge-2015.01.11
tar cJf fontforge-2015.01.11.tar.xz fontforge-2015.01.11
9fec2519ee57d23b2b62e280651df216  fontforge-2015.01.11.tar.xz

However the successful builds use git during configure and make.

The release note

​https://github.com/fontforge/fontforge/releases/tag/20141230

mentions

...
Binaries (and source packages) for Ubuntu and Debian are available from the
official FontForge Launchpad archive...
...
The source package for Red Hat is attached. Despite the generic name,
it is only for Red Hat.
...

Finally, I have complained, in comments 1 and 2 above, about the URL and package name changes, when what appears to have happened is no Unix "fontforge-20141230.tar.gz" package has been launched.

[bdubbs@…]

Try this:

    mkdir  test/twistd
    ./configure --prefix=/usr     \
                --sysconfdir=/etc \
                --disable-gphoto2 &&
    make                          &&

    echo "Start make check"
    make -k check
    echo "Deferred install"

    cd test
    ./gvfs-test

Or try it without the make check

[Armin K]

I have asked the fontforge developers to provide a proper source tarballs, and not the compressed git repository with all the metadata for main repository and all the submodules. That's the reason of the exponential growth of the tarball.

​https://github.com/fontforge/fontforge/issues/2043

[Armin K]

For the time being, I have created a tarball using "make dist" and the patch from the issue linked above on top of today's git master.

​http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~krejzi/fontforge-2.0.20141230.tar.xz (13 MB only!)

[Fernando de Oliveira]

I don't understand the version, because we have agreed to drop the 2.0.

[Armin K]

It's not my decision. "make dist" uses version from configure.ac, wich corresponds to the one above. It's what the first tarball was like, and its gzip tarball size corresponds to this one when gzip compressed, so I suppose the first included release tarball and this one was the correct way to do a release. It doesn't seem that they can agree which way is the correct one to create a release tarball.

[Fernando de Oliveira]

OK, I accept that and agree with your comment, about their decisions

Thanks for the tarball. Apart from the version I appreciated very much what you did. Isn't there a way to modify your patch so that it will drop the 2.0?

Anyway, I will try it later, when I stop replying and come back to do some work (for me or for BLFS).

[Fernando de Oliveira]

Have you tried to build with it?

It needs an active connection and git, the same way as

​https://github.com/fontforge/fontforge/archive/20141230.tar.gz

Think this is not acceptable in BLFS, as required, only as optional, but personally I would accept it.

Another option would be if we get it ourselves gnulib (see below bootstrap requiring git for gnulib) and include in the tarball. I have done this for some package that I don't remember before.

I have created a new package running inside the source directory you provided:

git init
git clone --depth 365 'git://git.sv.gnu.org/gnulib' 'gnulib'
git submodule init
git submodule update
cp -va bootstrap.conf bootstrap.conf.conf

cat >> bootstrap.conf << "EOF"
# Remove unnecessary warnings
func_gnulib_tool () { :; }
EOF

This can use book's instructions, just adding the switch --skip-git to bootstrap. It builds, installs and runs fine.

The modification of the bootstrap.conf file is needed just to remove the warnings:

bootstrap: warning: No 'git' found; imported gnulib modules may be outdated.
bootstrap: warning: No 'gnulib-tool' found; gnulib modules may be missing.

The copy of the original bootstrap.conf is just for documentation sake.

Is a tarball based on that acceptable for the book? (This question is extended to everybody) We could then rename to the convention in use now in the book for version. It will be a little hard to explain how the tarball was obtained, in the package page.

BTW, I was wrong yesterday, it is executed by botstrap.

However, if I compress 20141230.tar.gz as xz, your tarball is smaller by about 5 MB. Considering that the gz compressed tarball is 24 MB and yours xz compressed is 13 MB if you later remove from your directory, when it is copied into the public directories, it is better for anduin.

About git (edited, breaking the lines and removed avery long one having only lcdigits.png:

$ xzgrep git fontforge-2.0.20141230-simulation-2015.01.12-12h56m54s.log.xz
WARNING: you do not have a .git directory in your build, so one is being \
created
Initialized empty Git repository in \
/home/fernando/tmp/porg-build-2015.01.12-12h56m54s/fontforge-2.0.20141230/.git/
bootstrap: running: git clone --depth 365 \
                   'git://git.sv.gnu.org/gnulib' 'gnulib'
bootstrap: running: git submodule init
bootstrap: running: git submodule update
Updating ./m4/.gitignore (backup in ./m4/.gitignore~)
  libspiro		check	no	https://github.com/fontforge/libspiro
  libuninameslist	check	no	\
                    https://github.com/fontforge/libuninameslist

I have a physician appointment this afternoon, so perhaps I will only come back to BLFS tomorrow.

But thank you all for the replis of a mail, and tomorrow I will try to reply more deeply.

[bdubbs@…]

I don't see any references to fontforge in other BLFS packages. I think this is a niche package that appears to be more effort than it's worth.

Right now, I'm inclined to just archive it. What do you think?

[Armin K]

It was added as a required dependency for a package that's part of KDE Plasma 5. You may do with it as you please, but let us wait for a reply from upstream, if they switch to "make dist" based tarballs, it would ease our lives greatly.

Also note that the first version that was in the book was hosted at anduin for similar reasons.

[Fernando de Oliveira]

FWIW:

Running the tests requires wget:

$ xzgrep -E 'saved|ftp://' /home/fernando/Downloads/blfs/fontforge-2.0.20141230-simulation-2015.01.13-09h32m23s.log.xz
/usr/bin/wget ftp://ftp.naist.jp/pub/NetBSD/packages/distfiles/adobe-cidfonts/MunhwaGothic-Bold -O fonts/MunhwaGothic-Bold ; \
--2015-01-13 09:35:42--  ftp://ftp.naist.jp/pub/NetBSD/packages/distfiles/adobe-cidfonts/MunhwaGothic-Bold
2015-01-13 09:35:51 (182 KB/s) - 'fonts/MunhwaGothic-Bold' saved [575817]
if [ ! -e fetched-fonts/MunhwaGothic-Bold ] ; then /usr/bin/wget ftp://ftp.naist.jp/pub/NetBSD/packages/distfiles/adobe-cidfonts/MunhwaGothic-Bold -O fetched-fonts/MunhwaGothic-Bold ; fi ;
--2015-01-13 09:35:51--  ftp://ftp.naist.jp/pub/NetBSD/packages/distfiles/adobe-cidfonts/MunhwaGothic-Bold
2015-01-13 09:35:58 (194 KB/s) - 'fetched-fonts/MunhwaGothic-Bold' saved [575817]

[ken@…]

Meanwhile, on the previous version in the book (20141126) bootstrap fails with current libtool (2.4.5) because argz.m4 has been renamed to ltargz.m4. On that version, symlinking /usr/share/aclocal/argz.m4 before the bootstrap, and removing it after the bootstrap, allowed it to build, complete its tests, install.

Please consider this if/when we have a usable new tarball.

[bdubbs@…]

Would 'autoreconf -fi' work?

[ken@…]

Tried that instead of bootstrap, on fresh source (without removing libltdl):

ken@ac4tv /scratch/ken/fontforge-20141126 $autoreconf -fi
aclocal: error: aclocal: file 'm4/xvasprintf.m4' does not exist
autoreconf: aclocal failed with exit status: 1

[Pierre Labastie]

Looks like they came back to a more conventional packaging: ​https://github.com/fontforge/fontforge/releases/download/20150228/fontforge-20150228.tar.gz It's big, though (117 M). Upstream say it is because of the size of gnulib.

[Pierre Labastie]

Fixed at r15740