fonts-bugs February 2024

fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
18 discussions

[Bug 2251384] New: Wrong Arabic font prioritization in several apps. (Droid kufi prioritized over noto-sans)
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 28 Jun '24

28 Jun '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2251384 Bug ID: 2251384 Summary: Wrong Arabic font prioritization in several apps. (Droid kufi prioritized over noto-sans) Product: Fedora Version: 39 OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: fontconfig Severity: low Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com Reporter: alawamiaz(a)gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: ajax(a)redhat.com, fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, gnome-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, mclasen(a)redhat.com, rstrode(a)redhat.com, tagoh(a)redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Description of problem: Few fedora releases ago, Noto-Sans-Arabic was set to be the default. It was working fine and Arabic text was displayed in all web browsers using this font. sometime in last few months, every web browser in fedora suddenly started prioritizing "Druid Kufi" font over noto-sans-arabic. which now looks makes arabic text looks jarring. Interestingly, when running from live usb image, noto-sans-arabic is correctly priotirized and being used to render all arabic web pages, but only for FEW MINUTES and then suddenly it's switched to druid kufi!, without updating anything, just running Firefox for few minutes. It's also reproducible after fresh install, the first 3 minutes of using the new fedora installation, Firefox and other browsers are displaying noto-sans then suddenly switch to druid kufi. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 38-39 How reproducible: Consistently Steps to Reproduce: 1.Connect to internet 2.Open arabic webpage in firefox (ex, wikipedia) 3.text would be displayed with druid kufi instead of the default noto-sans-arabic which was chosen to be the default sometime around fedora 36. Actual results: Arabic Text displayed with druid kufi font Expected results: Arabic text should be displayed using noto-sans-arabic as was the case before. Additional info: The font in gnome and top bars is still correctly displayed using noto-sans-arabic. It's browsers that exhibit the problem. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2251384 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-sp…

1 9

[Bug 2260975] New: alfont: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f40
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 15 Jun '24

15 Jun '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260975 Bug ID: 2260975 Summary: alfont: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f40 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: alfont Assignee: hdegoede(a)redhat.com Reporter: releng(a)fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, hdegoede(a)redhat.com Blocks: 2231791 (F40FTBFS) Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora alfont failed to build from source in Fedora rawhide/f40 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112192424 For details on the mass rebuild see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Mass_Rebuild Please fix alfont at your earliest convenience and set the bug's status to ASSIGNED when you start fixing it. If the bug remains in NEW state for 8 weeks, alfont will be orphaned. Before branching of Fedora 41, alfont will be retired, if it still fails to build. For more details on the FTBFS policy, please visit: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails… Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231791 [Bug 2231791] Fedora 40 FTBFS Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260975 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-sp…

1 5

[Bug 2245798] New: fontforge fails to build with Python 3.13: error: implicit declaration of function `Py_SetProgramName`
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 15 Jun '24

15 Jun '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245798 Bug ID: 2245798 Summary: fontforge fails to build with Python 3.13: error: implicit declaration of function `Py_SetProgramName` Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: fontforge Assignee: kevin(a)scrye.com Reporter: ksurma(a)redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, kevin(a)scrye.com, ksurma(a)redhat.com, mhroncok(a)redhat.com, pnemade(a)redhat.com Blocks: 2231791 (F40FTBFS,RAWHIDEFTBFS), 2244836 (PYTHON3.13) Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora fontforge fails to build with Python 3.13.0a1. /builddir/build/BUILD/fontforge-20230101/fontforge/python.c:19636:5: error: implicit declaration of function ‘Py_SetProgramName’; did you mean ‘Py_GetProgramName’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] 19636 | Py_SetProgramName(saved_progname); | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Py_GetProgramName Py_SetProgramName has been removed from Python 3.13. According to https://docs.python.org/3.13/whatsnew/3.13.html: Py_SetProgramName(): set PyConfig.program_name instead. https://docs.python.org/3.13/whatsnew/3.13.html For the build logs, see: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/@python/python3.13/fedora-r… For all our attempts to build fontforge with Python 3.13, see: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/python/python3.13/package/fontfor… Testing and mass rebuild of packages is happening in copr. You can follow these instructions to test locally in mock if your package builds with Python 3.13: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/python/python3.13/ Let us know here if you have any questions. Python 3.13 is planned to be included in Fedora 41. To make that update smoother, we're building Fedora packages with all pre-releases of Python 3.13. A build failure prevents us from testing all dependent packages (transitive [Build]Requires), so if this package is required a lot, it's important for us to get it fixed soon. We'd appreciate help from the people who know this package best, but if you don't want to work on this now, let us know so we can try to work around it on our side. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231791 [Bug 2231791] Fedora 40 FTBFS Tracker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244836 [Bug 2244836] Python 3.13 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245798 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-sp…

1 2

[Bug 2258723] New: Variable fonts packages dont include all axis
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 20 May '24

20 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258723 Bug ID: 2258723 Summary: Variable fonts packages dont include all axis Product: Fedora Version: 39 OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: google-noto-fonts Keywords: RFE Severity: low Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com Reporter: sharpenedblade(a)proton.me QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, petersen(a)redhat.com, pwu(a)redhat.com, tagoh(a)redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora The *-vf packages package files from the `slim-variable-ttf` dir, which do not include every axis available for the font. Variable font files with all supported axis are in `variable-ttf` dir instead. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Install `google-noto-sans-vf` 2. Check which axis are supported 3. Download `https://github.com/notofonts/notofonts.github.io/archive/refs/tags/noto-monthly-release-23.8.1.tar.gz` and look in the `fonts/NotoSans/unhinted/variable-ttf` direcotry Actual Results: Only the weight axis is variable in this package Expected Results: The weight and width axis are variable in this package Changing the path at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/google-noto-fonts/blob/rawhide/f/google-… works for every variable font/script except for NotoKufiArabic, which has the complete font files in the `variable` dir. Before compression, this is ~16mb larger than before (total, across all subpackages). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258723 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-sp…

1 2

[Bug 1999078] New: Hinting broken for Bitstream Vera/DejaVu in Epiphany
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 16 May '24

16 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999078 Bug ID: 1999078 Summary: Hinting broken for Bitstream Vera/DejaVu in Epiphany Product: Fedora Version: 34 Status: NEW Component: freetype Assignee: mkasik(a)redhat.com Reporter: ossman(a)cendio.se QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: ajax(a)redhat.com, caillon+fedoraproject(a)gmail.com, fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, gnome-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org, mark(a)net-c.com, mclasen(a)redhat.com, mkasik(a)redhat.com, rhughes(a)redhat.com, rstrode(a)redhat.com, sandmann(a)redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Created attachment 1819062 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1819062&action=edit Screenshot with varying sub pixel placement Description of problem: After upgrading from Fedora 33 to Fedora 34, there is some extremely odd hinting bug in Epiphany. The same glyph appears with different amount of hinting in the same line of text, causing a very odd and blurry appearance. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): freetype-2.10.4-3.fc34.x86_64 bitstream-vera-sans-fonts-1.10-41.fc33.noarch dejavu-sans-fonts-2.37-16.fc34.noarch epiphany-40.3-1.fc34.x86_64 webkit2gtk3-2.32.3-1.fc34.x86_64 pango-1.48.9-2.fc34.x86_64 How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. Configure Epiphany to use Bitstream Vera or DejaVu Sans Book 2. Configure full hinting Actual results: Fully hinted, consistent glyphs. Expected results: Some glyphs are fully hinted, some look like they've been offset by a fraction of a pixel. (See screenshot) Additional info: So far I'm only seeing this in Epiphany. I still filed this for freetype since as far as I know it is freetype that does all glyph layout, hinting and sub-pixel stuff. Feel free to move as appropriate. So it seems odd that a bug in Epiphany can screw this up. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 41

[Bug 2207623] New: Please branch and build mozilla-fira-fonts in epel9
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 16 May '24

16 May '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2207623 Bug ID: 2207623 Summary: Please branch and build mozilla-fira-fonts in epel9 Product: Fedora Version: 38 OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: mozilla-fira-fonts Severity: medium Assignee: relrod(a)redhat.com Reporter: redhat(a)skarbek.name QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: admiller(a)redhat.com, fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, relrod(a)redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Please branch and build mozilla-fira-fonts in epel9. Reproducible: Always -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2207623

1 5

[Bug 2266182] New: CVE-2024-25081 CVE-2024-25082 fontforge: various flaws [fedora-all]
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 23 Mar '24

23 Mar '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2266182 Bug ID: 2266182 Summary: CVE-2024-25081 CVE-2024-25082 fontforge: various flaws [fedora-all] Product: Fedora Version: 39 Status: NEW Component: fontforge Keywords: Security, SecurityTracking Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: kevin(a)scrye.com Reporter: zmiele(a)redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, kevin(a)scrye.com, pnemade(a)redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora More information about these security flaws is available in the following bugs: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2266180 http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2266181 Disclaimer: Community trackers are created by Red Hat Product Security team on a best effort basis. Package maintainers are required to ascertain if the flaw indeed affects their package, before starting the update process. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2266182 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-sp…

1 8

[Bug 2262410] New: Fonts are looking wrong after 20240101 update
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 19 Mar '24

19 Mar '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262410 Bug ID: 2262410 Summary: Fonts are looking wrong after 20240101 update Product: Fedora Version: 39 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: google-noto-fonts Severity: medium Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com Reporter: priv.luk(a)gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, petersen(a)redhat.com, pwu(a)redhat.com, tagoh(a)redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Fonts look improperly in multiple places, e.g. mpv or KDE file picker. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Open mpv and look at OSD fonts Actual Results: Fonts look wrong Expected Results: Fonts look properly See https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/13396 for screenshots. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262410 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-sp…

1 35

[Bug 2088665] New: Noto Sans is chosen to display symbol characters it doesn't contain
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 18 Mar '24

18 Mar '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2088665 Bug ID: 2088665 Summary: Noto Sans is chosen to display symbol characters it doesn't contain Product: Fedora Version: 36 Status: NEW Component: google-noto-fonts Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com Reporter: talk(a)danielflaum.net QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, petersen(a)redhat.com, psatpute(a)redhat.com, pwu(a)redhat.com, tagoh(a)redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Created attachment 1881507 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1881507&action=edit A zipped sample PDF and image of relevant portion of PDF when affected by the issue Description of problem: Given a PDF lacking embedded fonts which use certain characters (including → and ≥), GNOME's Evince on Fedora 36 chooses to substitute the Noto Sans font, which does not include these characters. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Successfully reproduced by two people independently. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Boot a fresh copy of Fedora 36 (the Live version in a VM will do). 2. Open the attached sample PDF in GNOME Evince (aka Document Viewer). 3. Observe the missing characters in the second paragraph from the top of the page. Actual results: See attached image. Expected results: The missing characters should be displayed properly as → (that is, https://unicode-table.com/en/2192/). Additional info: The filer initially sought help at https://ask.fedoraproject.org/t/missing-characters-in-pdfs-since-upgrade-fr…, which may be informative in reproducing the issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2088665

1 26

[Bug 2093080] New: Default fonts for Arabic do not match the font packages list
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 15 Mar '24

15 Mar '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080 Bug ID: 2093080 Summary: Default fonts for Arabic do not match the font packages list Product: Fedora Version: 36 Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: fontconfig Severity: medium Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com Reporter: awilliam(a)redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: ajax(a)redhat.com, caillon+fedoraproject(a)gmail.com, fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, gnome-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, mclasen(a)redhat.com, pnemade(a)redhat.com, rhughes(a)redhat.com, rstrode(a)redhat.com, sandmann(a)redhat.com, tagoh(a)redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora There's a test case: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_i18n_default_fonts which requires checking the default fonts for various languages against a list, http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/fonts/fc-test.sh . The current default fonts for Arabic installs do not match the list. The list states sans should be DejaVu Sans, serif should be FreeSerif or MPH 2B Damase, and mono should be DejaVu Sans Mono. These may have been changed recently, as our openQA reference text file expects them to be Noto Naskh Arabic (for both sans and serif?) and PakType Naskh Basic for mono. In any case, what we actually see doesn't match either the list or the openQA reference file. We see "Noto Sans Arabic" and "PakType Naqsh" in the output from the test, I think for serif (yes really) and monospace respectively. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080

1 20

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts-bugs February 2024