August 2010 - fonts-bugs - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Issue 113586] Unable to get correct version of OpenSymbol

by hdu＠openoffice.org

To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=113586 ------- Additional comments from hdu(a)openoffice.org Wed Aug 4 07:50:45 +0000 2010 ------- @tl: Regarding *.tar.gz distributions of OOo the answer is simple: if you use tarballs you do not get the benefits of package management such as getting your requirements resolved automatically. For exactly this reason official OOo releases are only distributed as *deb or *rpm and not as *tgz. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification

13 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 564466] Review Request: ubuntu-title-fonts - decorative font of Ubuntu logo

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=564466 Paul Flo Williams <paul(a)frixxon.co.uk> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |ubuntutitle-fonts - |ubuntu-title-fonts - |decorative font of Ubuntu |decorative font of Ubuntu |logo |logo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Issue 113586] Unable to get correct version of OpenSymbol

by tl＠openoffice.org

To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=113586 ------- Additional comments from tl(a)openoffice.org Wed Aug 4 07:37:51 +0000 2010 ------- tl->hdu: Are you sure abot that this is a task for the package specialist? I agree that it should behave as listed, but I also think that will NOT solve the problem completely. After all packages are not available in tar balls (which are also a common means of distributing OOo). And what about the other OS aside from Linux? Can we guarantee that there will be no problem as well? Also as I understood IS yesterday our single existing font package unfortunately does not provide version info so far :-( , and splitting out OpenSymbol is also no option since that would be an incompatible change in the package manager which is not allowed for minor versions. Therefore it is impossible to introduce a correct working dependency to the OpenSymbol font right now. Thus it looks like the packaging side of the problem can only be addressed for OOo 4.0. TL->IS: Please correct me if I understood something wrong. But as already said above having tar ball distributions in mind will already make a pure packet based solution inappropriate. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification

13 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Issue 113586] Unable to get correct version of OpenSymbol

by hdu＠openoffice.org

To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=113586 User hdu changed the following: What |Old value |New value ================================================================================ Assigned to|hdu |is -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Additional comments from hdu(a)openoffice.org Wed Aug 4 07:22:39 +0000 2010 ------- Thanks for the excellent summary of the consensus regarding font packaging. > 6. the application package *must* require the font packages it needs so the fontconfig selections it > needs succeeds [...] and that dependencies are used to make sure the font package is present when > OO.o needs it. Yup, so this is obviously a task for a package specialist. Reassigning accordingly. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification

13 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 572427] New: [abrt] crash in fontforge-20090622-2.fc12: Process /usr/bin/fontforge was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV)

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: [abrt] crash in fontforge-20090622-2.fc12: Process /usr/bin/fontforge was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=572427 Summary: [abrt] crash in fontforge-20090622-2.fc12: Process /usr/bin/fontforge was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV) Product: Fedora Version: 12 Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Status Whiteboard: abrt_hash:76dd7d152233d7934b4bb42e08385d8ac4cb7e3b Severity: medium Priority: low Component: fontforge AssignedTo: kevin(a)tummy.com ReportedBy: cchance(a)redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: roozbeh(a)gmail.com, kevin(a)tummy.com, fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- abrt 1.0.7 detected a crash. architecture: x86_64 Attached file: backtrace cmdline: fontforge component: fontforge executable: /usr/bin/fontforge kernel: 2.6.31.12-174.2.22.fc12.x86_64 package: fontforge-20090622-2.fc12 rating: 4 reason: Process /usr/bin/fontforge was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV) release: Fedora release 12 (Constantine) How to reproduce ----- 1. Open a font file by File > Open or on command line. 2. Hint > edit cvt table. 3. Expand the cvt table window. 4. It crashed. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 11 months

1
7
0 / 0

[Bug 610168] New: [abrt] crash in fontforge-20090923-3.fc13: _GXPDraw_configfont: Process /usr/bin/fontforge was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV)

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: [abrt] crash in fontforge-20090923-3.fc13: _GXPDraw_configfont: Process /usr/bin/fontforge was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=610168 Summary: [abrt] crash in fontforge-20090923-3.fc13: _GXPDraw_configfont: Process /usr/bin/fontforge was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV) Product: Fedora Version: 13 Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Status Whiteboard: abrt_hash:4adc61ee8effdb5871490020b15a086492ed418c Severity: medium Priority: low Component: fontforge AssignedTo: kevin(a)tummy.com ReportedBy: paul(a)frixxon.co.uk QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: roozbeh(a)gmail.com, kevin(a)tummy.com, fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora abrt 1.1.1 detected a crash. architecture: x86_64 Attached file: backtrace cmdline: fontforge /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSans.ttf component: fontforge crash_function: _GXPDraw_configfont executable: /usr/bin/fontforge global_uuid: 4adc61ee8effdb5871490020b15a086492ed418c kernel: 2.6.33.5-124.fc13.x86_64 package: fontforge-20090923-3.fc13 rating: 4 reason: Process /usr/bin/fontforge was killed by signal 11 (SIGSEGV) release: Fedora release 13 (Goddard) comment ----- Attempting to edit DejaVuSans.ttf from installed package dejavu-sans-fonts-2.31-1.fc13.noarch The two steps given will always crash FontForge. How to reproduce ----- 1. fontforge /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/DejaVuSans.ttf 2. Select Hints -> Edit 'cvt' ... cvt window displays briefly, then fontforge dies. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 11 months

1
6
0 / 0

[Issue 113586] Unable to get correct version of OpenSymbol

by tl＠openoffice.org

To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=113586 ------- Additional comments from tl(a)openoffice.org Tue Aug 3 07:57:30 +0000 2010 ------- tl->nmailhot: I see now. Thanks for the detailed explanation. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification

13 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Issue 113586] Unable to get correct version of OpenSymbol

by nmailhot＠openoffice.org

To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=113586 ------- Additional comments from nmailhot(a)openoffice.org Tue Aug 3 06:29:49 +0000 2010 ------- @tl > If that is what is happening wouldn't it be proper handling if the font was > moved away from share/fonts/truetype to establish a link to the new location in > that directory as well? It seems I need to expand. Fedora (and where Fedora leads, others tend to follow) is moving *away* from font-selection-by-filename as fast as a gigantic package repository like ours can. The reason is simple: most applications that embed fonts do not maintain them, application authors just download random fonts on the net and dump them in their trees, do not review them, do not update them. So we had dozens of copies of Vera in the repository way after everyone had been supposed to move to DejaVu, several Arial copies when they violate our licensing guidelines, various old buggy font versions that had long been fixed in the font package dedicated to this font, etc (and all those problem font files consumed quite a lot of space btw) Therefore, our new target is: 1. apps do not select fonts by filename 2. apps are forbidden to include font files in their application package, they have to use existing font packages or split their fonts in new packages if no one else provides them 3. font selection *must* go through fontconfig 4. fonts exist somewhere in fontconfig space, their exact location is not fixed and can change without notice 5. sometimes fonts are not actually present but faked by fontconfig font aliasing (typically, DejaVu declares itself as Vera if the Vera package is not installed) 6. the application package *must* require the font packages it needs so the fontconfig selections it needs succeeds 7. and lately we've started adding magic font provides to font packages such as font(dejavusans) so other packages do not need to know the exact name of the font package, just the font provide they require Longer term we may start tweaking font names in the fontconfig layer like Microsoft does in WPF to fix hopelessly named fonts/styles. Anything that accesses font files directly will break in this scheme Now, I realise the main justification for the change does not apply to OpenSymbol, since OO.o actually maintains the font it embeds, and our opensymbol font package is generated from the OO.o srpm, so there's no coordination problem between the application packager and the font packager However, common packaging guidelines must target the common case first. And the common case is we want font embedding to stop. So font symlinking, while done when an app is too dumb to got through fontconfig, is not encouraged, and breaks regularly when files are moved within fontconfig directories (because fontconfig apps do not care about it, and other apps are supposed to be fixed anyway, so why add constrains to font packagers). Also, who knows, now that opensymbol uses standard unicode points, we may decide to replace it with some other nicer unicode math font in the future, and alias this font to opensymbol to hide the change from OO.o. Therefore, I strongly recommends OO.o makes sure its symbol font is named in such a way it can safely select it via fontconfig only on Linux systems, that no attempt to do resolution by filename is added, and that dependencies are used to make sure the font package is present when OO.o needs it. See also the official Fedora font packaging guidelines and in particular the fontpackages templates. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy You'll find out individual font packagers are not even allowed to specify the location of font files, it's all taken care of by an opaque macro they have no control of but are required to use (and when this macro changes, every font in the distro may be relocated on rebuild) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification

13 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 526957] New: Fonts are larger than the windows equivalents

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Fonts are larger than the windows equivalents https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526957 Summary: Fonts are larger than the windows equivalents Product: Fedora Version: 11 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: liberation-fonts AssignedTo: cchance(a)redhat.com ReportedBy: daniel(a)viseztrance.com QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: petersen(a)redhat.com, cchance(a)redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list(a)redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs(a)redhat.com Classification: Fedora The fonts are larger than their equivalents, thus braking some websites. Having tested websites on windows, macosx and ubuntu, fedora is the only one that breaks the layout because of the font size regardless of the browser used. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

13 years, 11 months

1
18
0 / 0

[Issue 113558] Change Case broken by language tags and/or ligatures

by jurf＠openoffice.org

To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=113558 ------- Additional comments from jurf(a)openoffice.org Tue Aug 3 01:32:42 +0000 2010 ------- Thanks for splitting this. FYI, the dictionary bug was solved in CWS tl81, integrated in OOO330m2. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification

13 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts-bugs August 2010