noto-fonts-emoji: Package both color and monochrome variants

[nbraud]

Description of changes

• noto-fonts-emoji → noto-fonts-color-emoji
• noto-fonts-monochrome-emoji: init at v46.2023-09-07

Closes #221181.

Things done

• Built on platform(s)
  • x86_64-linux
  • aarch64-linux
  • x86_64-darwin
  • aarch64-darwin
• Tested, as applicable:
  • NixOS test(s) (look inside nixos/tests)
• Tested compilation of all packages that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nixpkgs-review --run "nixpkgs-review rev HEAD". Note: all changes have to be committed, also see nixpkgs-review usage
• Tested basic functionality of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
• 23.11 Release Notes (or backporting 23.05 Release notes)
  • (Package updates) Added a release notes entry if the change is major or breaking
• Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

[nbraud]

@mkg20001 since you already saw the sourcery involved.

[yorickvP]

Thanks for this! I added some feedback.

[nbraud]

I moved the file hashes to a second file (now in SRI format), and added a script to automate the update process, which:

• fetches the metadata, if an API key is available (and otherwise uses the stale metadata in the JSON file) ;
• downloads and hashes each new URL (this part does not require an API key) ;
• atomically updates the JSON files with the metadata and hashes.

[nbraud]

Changed the version away from unstable-2023-09-07 as I realised upstream does assign proper version numbers, according to their own API.

[nbraud]

It's kind of annoying we cannot set passthru.updateScript to ./noto-emoji.py as things stand. Is there a good reason we can't drop a Google Fonts API key in the repo?

Google's own documentation has an “API Explorer” which does exactly that: some API key is passed to browser-side JS code, though that specific key is bound to the right Referer (which wouldn't stop anyone from using it outside browsers)

[Mathnerd314]

Is there a good reason we can't drop a Google Fonts API key in the repo?

We do have a Chromium key. It looks like @aszlig got permission for it many years ago. As mentioned in that commit, the public Google API TOS does forbid distributing API keys publicly (https://developers.google.com/terms: "Developer credentials may not be embedded in open source projects."), so a Fonts API key would similarly require special permission from Google. I'm not sure who you would reach out to now.

[aszlig]

We do have a Chromium key. It looks like @aszlig got permission for it many years ago. As mentioned in that commit, the public Google API TOS does forbid distributing API keys publicly (https://developers.google.com/terms: "Developer credentials may not be embedded in open source projects."), so a Fonts API key would similarly require special permission from Google. I'm not sure who you would reach out to now.

Good luck... we're currently running into quota limits for these mentioned API keys (they're also used in Firefox btw.) and so far we were unable to reach anyone from Google who's in charge of these after multiple attempts. If you do for some reason find the right contact at Google, please let us know (cc: @mweinelt). The person mentioned in that referenced commit no longer works there.

[nbraud]

Thanks @aszlig and @Mathnerd314, for all the information. I'll see what I can do. :3

[nbraud]

The test failure seems unrelated: I did not touch maintainers/*, and team-list.nix fails to evaluate:

error: undefined variable 'ctheune'

at /var/lib/ofborg/checkout/repo/38dca4e3aa6bca43ea96d2fcc04e8229/mr-est/ofborg-evaluator-7/maintainers/team-list.nix:300:7:

   299|     members = [
   300|       ctheune
      |       ^
   301|       dpausp

[mweinelt]

Fixed in #254387. Please rebase.

[nbraud]

Done