debian_buildenv.sh dependencies

[blackhold]

debian_buildenv.sh it asks to install fonts-ubuntu but it should be fonts-ubuntu-title issue #15816

[daschuer]

I am afraid this is not a solution. fonts-ubuntu-title comes with ubuntu-title, but MIxxx uses ubuntu (without any extension).
The Debian 13 package can be found here:
https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=fonts-ubuntu&searchon=names&suite=trixie&section=all
I think the issue happens because it us in the non-free area for some reasons.

But since this was an issue for you, we need to improve the situation.

How about adding a

apt-cache show fonts-ubuntu

Check and if it fails prompt the user to enable non-free or optional skip non free-packages.

[daschuer]

The issue happens already in 2.5. Can you rebase your branch to 2.5?

git rebase --onto=2.5 HEAD~1
``

[blackhold]

The installation is in a new fresh debian 13 install with official netinstaller iso from saturday:

root@melatonina:~# cat /etc/apt/sources.list
#deb cdrom:[Debian GNU/Linux 13.2.0 _Trixie_ - Official amd64 NETINST with firmware 20251115-11:04]/ trixie contrib main non-free-firmware

deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ trixie main non-free-firmware
deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian/ trixie main non-free-firmware

deb http://security.debian.org/debian-security trixie-security main non-free-firmware
deb-src http://security.debian.org/debian-security trixie-security main non-free-firmware

# trixie-updates, to get updates before a point release is made;
# see https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/ch02.en.html#_updates_and_backports
deb http://deb.debian.org/debian/ trixie-updates main non-free-firmware
deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian/ trixie-updates main non-free-firmware

# This system was installed using removable media other than
# CD/DVD/BD (e.g. USB stick, SD card, ISO image file).
# The matching "deb cdrom" entries were disabled at the end
# of the installation process.
# For information about how to configure apt package sources,
# see the sources.list(5) manual.
root@melatonina:~# apt-cache show fonts-ubuntu
N: No es poden seleccionar versions del paquet «fonts-ubuntu» perquè és purament virtual
N: No s'han trobat paquets
root@melatonina:~# apt-cache search fonts-ubuntu
fonts-ubuntu-title - font used to create the Ubuntu logo (2004‒2010)

[daschuer]

Greate. What does:
apt-cache show fonts-ubuntu
print?

Than follow this:

https://serverfault.com/questions/240920/how-do-i-enable-non-free-packages-on-debian

and try again.

A solution would be to call
apt-cache show fonts-ubuntu

and if it fails prompt the user to add the non-free repository, or ignore the error.

[blackhold]

I don't want to generate controversy, but you are forcing the user to add and use non-free packages to use a font, is that optimal? In case they want to use this package, the user should be informed that the non-free repository, and then add it to the script.

[daschuer]

Its a design decision of Mixxx to use the Ubuntu font.
For my understanding this PR is about the first time contributor experience on Debian. They need to be informef that they need the non-free repository to create the original upstream Mixxx. They shall not suffer like you did. Mixxx will pick a fallback font if Ubuntu is not available. Any idea to improve the situation is welcome.

[blackhold]

Well, this suffering in me is relative :P But there may be purist users who may back down. I consider that giving the user the option to use free or non-free repositories can be a point in favor of mixxx. It can be done in two ways, either by warning the user or creating a second script with the non-free option.

The other option is to add a check of whether the package is available or not and solve it with an if. If you think it's good, I could implement it, I don't see anything excessively complicated.

In my installation when making this change I haven't seen problems with this typography. Tell me where this typography is being used and I'll take a screenshot to see if it looks bad or not.

[daschuer]

The Debian distribution of Mixxx does not depend on any fonts. They have probably ripped of them because of the non free topic.

For this PR I prefer a warning when "fonts-ubuntu" is missing for the 2.5 and 26 branch.
Something like that:

The package "fonts-ubuntu" is missing. Please add the non-free repository by ... or continue without by ...

The other question if there a fully free replacement for "fonts-ubuntu". I think it is used in the preferences. Since I am at Ubuntu I can't tell if it is explicit Ubuntu or just the default Ubuntu Font. This would be a 2.7 issue (main)

[blackhold]

OK, in next hours I add the message and the action and do the commit.

[blackhold]

well, changes applied to my branch, but I'm not able to create the pull request. The one thing I was able to do is: blackhold#1

UPDATE: oops! it seems it appears here! waiting to see if I have done the pull request ok. Thanks

[daschuer]

Thank you for the nice addition.

This already suites to our 2.5 branch. Are you familiar with git? Can you rebase your solution to the 2.5 branch? If not, I can either guide you through the required commands for the sake of learning or take over after this PR is finished.

[daschuer]

We do not use such an eye candy yet:

Suggested change

	echo "⚠️ WARNING: The package 'fonts-ubuntu' is not available."
	echo "WARNING: The package 'fonts-ubuntu' is not available."

[daschuer]

Changing the users system like that makes me nervous. This may work now but may break any system that is no longe like we expect.

Can you replace that with a brief hint how to fix the situation, like linking to the official Debian Wiki https://wiki.debian.org/SourcesList and than just ask here if the user wants to continue anyway or recall the script later.

[blackhold]

Thank you for the nice addition.

This already suites to our 2.5 branch. Are you familiar with git? Can you rebase your solution to the 2.5 branch? If not, I can either guide you through the required commands for the sake of learning or take over after this PR is finished.

Done. In my repo I edited the file directly in main.

[daschuer]

Ah I see. Normally every PR should have a feature branch since you opened this PR on the 2.5 branch we can temporary treat your 2.6 branch as feature branch and reset it later to the 2.6 upstream branch.

This is by the way a lovely tutorial for git. This helps me a lot:
https://learngitbranching.js.org/

Now lets clean up this.

I have already changed that merge target to 2.5, the reason we esse here 1623 commit.

We want the single commit from main to be on top of 2.5.
First we need to make this PR branch a 2.5 branch.
Do you already have a upstream remote? If not add it.

git remote add upstream git@github.com:mixxxdj/mixxx.git
git fetch upstream

Now we can make your locals 2.6 branch a 2.5 branch. The following command

git checkout 2.6 
git reset upstream/2.5 --hard 

than pick the n commits from main.
Replace 1 with the number of commits you need:

git cherry-pick main~1..main 

Update this PR

git push -f 

Unfortunately your edits regarding my comments are not yet online. Do yo plan to do it?

[blackhold]

close. Use #15895