Robert: On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Paul Hardy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Robert Millan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 09:04:34AM -0700, Paul Hardy wrote: >>> I just saw from reading about Bug #494460 that it was unifont-bin that >>> installed unifont.hex. With the package I put together last night for >>> testing, /usr/share/unifont/unifont.hex is put in place by the >>> "unifont" package, not the "unifont-bin" package... > > If it would be better, you could take the unifont source package the > way I put it together and make these changes: > > 1) Delete the file debian/unifont.install (nothing else used it > -- I just added it for this bug) > 2) Add the directory "usr/share/unifont" to debian/unifont-bin.install > > I'll leave it up to your judgment. If it will be easier for GRUB to > upload the above as a "-3" version, please do so. > When I wrote the above, I didn't have a preference one way or another. Now I do.
After thinking about this, I believe the best long-term solution is to leave unifont.hex as part of the unifont package, the way it is in the "-2" release, and not placing it in the unifont-bin package. This is because the nature of unifont.hex and of the unifont package in general are both "Architecture: all" and the nature of the unifont-bin package is definitely not "Architecture: all". With unifont.hex out of the unifont-bin package, that will prevent redundant copies of a 4 Megabyte unifont.hex file (one for each architecture) from getting put in every single binary build. Paul Hardy GPG Key ID: E6E6E390 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
