Bug#1058697: fonts-fork-awesome: expected files missing?

[Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>]

Package: fonts-fork-awesome
Version: 1.2.0+ds1-1
Control: affects -1 cacti

Hi,

For src:cacti (of which I'm de-facto the only maintainer) I received a 
bug report in Ubuntu (#2046431) about missing files. As cacti doesn't 
ship these files, but Depends on fonts-fork-awesome I was wondering if 
cacti upstream is shipping "weird" files or if the files are reasonable 
to be expected and are just missing to be build/shipped in 
fonts-fork-awesome.

We're at least talking about ./webfonts/fa-solid-900.woff2 and 
./css/all.css.

See below for my reply to the Ubuntu bug report.

Paul

On 14-12-2023 10:13, Francis Greaves wrote:
> I setup everything, added the Gexport Plugin from here
> https://github.com/Cacti/plugin_gexport, but in the log I had 4 PHP
> errors relating to missing files:
>
> /usr/share/cacti/site/include/fa/webfonts/fa-solid-900.woff2
> /usr/share/cacti/site/include/fa/css/all.css

Did this error only occur after you added the plugin?

> Looking at the folder structure compared with the official download from
> the Cacti site:

In Debian (and hence in Ubuntu) we try to depend on packages providing 
functionality instead of embedding other projects in source packages. 
For cacti in Ubuntu, the Awesome Font is delivered by the 
fonts-fork-awesome package. You'll see that include/fa is a soft-link.

> the include/fa/css folder only had two items fork-awesome.css and
> v5-compat.css when it should have 16 items
>
> the include/fa/ folder only has 5 items when it should have 10 and in
> particular has NO webfonts at all.
>
> Just as a test before moving to the official download I copied the
> include/fa/webfonts folder and the contents of the include/fa/css folder
> to the Ubuntu install

So, I wonder if we should request changes to the fonts-fork-awesome 
package. Unfortunately, I'm not experience in how webfonts work.

> I have attached two files showing the folder structure of this version
> of Cacti and the official version to compare. The are ALOT of
> differences!

Yes, that's totally expected.

Paul

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature