Ubuntu Font Family 0.69+ufl would be valuable for older releases

Fixed in maverick.

Dapper desktop has been EOLed over a year ago, and a new font isn't interesting for servers, so WONTFIXing.

Similarly, Jaunty will go EOL in a few weeks, I don't think it is worth the trouble there.

For the other releases, the usual vehicle for this is backports. However, I agree that the regression potential is pretty close to zero, so I have no technical arguments to put against this "SABDFL policy exception" :-)

I'm waiting a bit for another SRU team member to comment; in particular I'd be interested in an opinion from the less biased community members like John.

Heh. I can't claim to be unbiased but to be clear, I'm not making an
sabdfl exception, but asking folks to consider it through the normal
process. The SRU process already covers items in the Partner archive,
this is similar just content that I think reasonably belongs in the main
archive. If the decision is nyet, then we'll publish it in PPA's for
those who want it.

Mark

There will be at least one more rebuild of the upstream and then .deb packaging to pull in a newer version of the UFL and its FAQ; so effort may be saved by waiting until the Ubuntu 10.10 release has actually happened.

+1 to waiting till 10.10 is out

Any news on this?

Normally new packages would go in -backports. It's no problem to put these in backports as long as someone will test they build, install, and run (whatever run means for a font).

scottk: there should be three packages waiting in {hardy,karmic,lucid}-proposed, which because of the low risk (no executable code) it would being suggested to push them out that way (in a similar way to the tasteful 'ubuntu-calendar' monthly updates!)...

Paul Sladen [2010-10-15 10:03 -0000]:
> scottk: there should be three packages waiting in
> {hardy,karmic,lucid}-proposed

There aren't; did you get a REJECT mail?

You can check the queue here:
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+queue?queue_state=1
--
Martin Pitt | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org)

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:03:04AM -0000, Paul Sladen wrote:
> scottk: there should be three packages waiting in
> {hardy,karmic,lucid}-proposed, which because of the low risk (no
> executable code) it would being suggested to push them out that way (in
> a similar way to the tasteful 'ubuntu-calendar' monthly updates!)...

Er, ubuntu-calendar has had no updates since hardy. Did you have another
package in mind?

--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
<email address hidden> <email address hidden>

Yes, 3x REJECT, and twenty minutes later (after my D'oh!), 3x "...~{lucid,karmic,hardy}1" in NEW:

  https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/lucid/+queue?queue_state=0

Accepted ubuntu-font-family-sources into lucid-proposed, the package will build now and be available in a few hours. Please test and give feedback here. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation how to enable and use -proposed. Thank you in advance!

Accepted ubuntu-font-family-sources into hardy-proposed, the package will build now and be available in a few hours. Please test and give feedback here. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation how to enable and use -proposed. Thank you in advance!

Accepted ubuntu-font-family-sources into karmic-proposed, the package will build now and be available in a few hours. Please test and give feedback here. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation how to enable and use -proposed. Thank you in advance!

Installed 0.69+ufl-0ubuntu1~lucid1 on lucid, worked fine and I'm using that font as default now after changing my settings.

Installed the proposed package on karmic, nothing changed in the existing desktop. Then I went to preferences and changed the font to Ubuntu for several classes and the new font started to be used without issues.

Thanks guys, great to see the font available for existing users.

Keeping v-neded for hardy.

This bug was fixed in the package ubuntu-font-family-sources - 0.69+ufl-0ubuntu1~lucid1

---------------
ubuntu-font-family-sources (0.69+ufl-0ubuntu1~lucid1) lucid-proposed; urgency=low

  * Backport/SRU for Ubuntu 10.04 LTS (LP: #650889)
 -- Paul Sladen <email address hidden> Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:27:00 +0100

This bug was fixed in the package ubuntu-font-family-sources - 0.69+ufl-0ubuntu1~karmic1

---------------
ubuntu-font-family-sources (0.69+ufl-0ubuntu1~karmic1) karmic-proposed; urgency=low

  * Backport/SRU for Ubuntu 9.10 (LP: #650889)
 -- Paul Sladen <email address hidden> Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:30:00 +0100

In Hardy it was a bit different. I had to tweak some settings in the anti-aliasing and hinting panels to make it look as good as in the other distros. Not sure if that particular installation of mine had values different from the default, I can't tell anymore.

But the end result is that it worked and looks great now, and just installing it didn't change anything until I explicitly selected the new font in the preferences dialog.

Andreas: yes, this is why it's low risk. We are just wishing to make the package /available/ in those older archives for those who want it easily, ...not seeking to install it it by default or to alter any rendering settings.

This bug was fixed in the package ubuntu-font-family-sources - 0.69+ufl-0ubuntu1~hardy1

---------------
ubuntu-font-family-sources (0.69+ufl-0ubuntu1~hardy1) hardy-proposed; urgency=low

  * Backport/SRU for Ubuntu 08.04 LTS (LP: #650889)
 -- Paul Sladen <email address hidden> Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:33:00 +0100

Would the people who kindly tested the *-proposed package for this bug report be prepared to do the same over at bug #709980 (for 0.70.1).