I am the current maintainer of the AUR package
ttf-google-webfonts-hg[4], and I'm bothered by the mess of various
packages there are for Google's Web Fonts project. It's not at all
KISS in its current state.
There are currently four different AUR packages[1][2][3][4] that
essentially supply the same files, and all four packages conflict with
each other. Around August of 2012, the package named
ttf-google-webfonts[1] was orphaned, and user w0ng created a GitHub
repository[5] that mirrors the Mercurial repository[6] on Google Code
(why?). Then, the new maintainer changed the original
ttf-google-webfonts package from a VCS-type package that simply lacked
"-hg" in the name to a package that pulls tarballs from w0ng's GitHub
repo[5].
As you can see in the comments for ttf-google-webfonts[1], this has
caused all sorts of confusion and messages about the package being
out-of-date or having invalid checksums. To get around these issues,
user epinephrine created the package ttf-google-webfonts-git[3] that
clones w0ng's GitHub repo[5] instead of pulling tarballs from it,
which significantly reduces the maintenance required on the package.
Then, user Gently created a package named
ttf-google-webfonts-distilled[2] that pulls a tarball from w0ng's
GitHub repo[5] and only installs a small subset of the fonts therein.
Shortly after ttf-google-webfonts[1] was changed from being a
Mercurial-based package and not liking the direction that the package
was taking, I reuploaded the original ttf-google-webfonts package as
ttf-google-webfonts-hg[4] for people that simply wanted the old
package back that uses the actual Google Web Fonts repository to
download the files.
To clean up this mess, I propose that ttf-google-webfonts-distilled[2]
and ttf-google-webfonts-git[3] be deleted outright, for what should be
obvious reasons. I also propose that ttf-google-webfonts[1] be deleted
because of how frequently the Web Fonts project is updated and because
the project lacks version numbers. If people really feel strongly
about keeping that maintenance nightmare, then let them have it, but I
really don't see what advantage it provides over the original
ttf-google-webfonts-hg[4] other than one less makedepends.
I apologize for the huge email, but this situation really is a mess.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ttf-google-webfonts/
[2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ttf-google-webfonts-distilled/
[3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ttf-google-webfonts-git/
[4] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ttf-google-webfonts-hg/
[5] https://github.com/w0ng/googlefontdirectory
[6] https://code.google.com/p/googlefontdirectory/
Jason
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/
There are currently:
* 2 new packages in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 0 fully signed off packages
* 18 packages missing signoffs
* 14 packages older than 14 days
(Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by
pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one
package per architecture, even if it is a split package.)
== New packages in [community-testing] in last 24 hours (2 total) ==
* rofi-0.15.12-1 (i686)
* rofi-0.15.12-1 (x86_64)
== Incomplete signoffs for [community] (18 total) ==
* acpi_call-1.1.0-37 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* bbswitch-0.8-39 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* r8168-8.040.00-9 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* rofi-0.15.12-1 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* roxterm-3.3.1-1 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r3-2 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* tp_smapi-0.41-76 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* vhba-module-20140928-20 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* virtualbox-modules-5.0.12-2 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* acpi_call-1.1.0-37 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* bbswitch-0.8-39 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* r8168-8.040.00-9 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* rofi-0.15.12-1 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* roxterm-3.3.1-1 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r3-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* tp_smapi-0.41-76 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* vhba-module-20140928-20 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* virtualbox-modules-5.0.12-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
== All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (14 total) ==
* r8168-8.040.00-9 (i686), since 2015-11-04
* r8168-8.040.00-9 (x86_64), since 2015-11-04
* vhba-module-20140928-20 (i686), since 2015-11-04
* vhba-module-20140928-20 (x86_64), since 2015-11-04
* acpi_call-1.1.0-37 (i686), since 2015-11-04
* acpi_call-1.1.0-37 (x86_64), since 2015-11-04
* rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r3-2 (i686), since 2015-11-04
* rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r3-2 (x86_64), since 2015-11-04
* bbswitch-0.8-39 (i686), since 2015-11-04
* bbswitch-0.8-39 (x86_64), since 2015-11-04
* tp_smapi-0.41-76 (i686), since 2015-11-04
* tp_smapi-0.41-76 (x86_64), since 2015-11-04
* roxterm-3.3.1-1 (i686), since 2015-12-14
* roxterm-3.3.1-1 (x86_64), since 2015-12-14
== Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==
1. foutrelis - 2 signoffs
Hi all, and happy holidays,
I am about to upload the PKGBUILD for the Dell 2155cn/cdn printer
driver and thought someone should take a look at it before I submit.
Please let me know if you spot any mistakes or find there are
improvements that should be made.
Here is the mentioned PKGBUILD:
http://pastie.org/pastes/10652982/text?key=23xhgip17gp9tvriuiyma
Kind regards,
Peter