Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Many chinese glyphs on Japanese environment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475743
Summary: Many chinese glyphs on Japanese environment Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: VLGothic-fonts AssignedTo: ryo-dairiki@users.sourceforge.net ReportedBy: mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: tagoh@redhat.com, ryo-dairiki@users.sourceforge.net, fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs@redhat.com Classification: Fedora
Description of problem: Since VLGothic-fonts is upgraded to 20081203, I see many chinese glyphs on Japanese environment. Downloading to 20081029 works good.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): VLGothic-fonts-20081203-2.fc11
(perhaps?) cjkunifonts-ukai-0.2.20080216.1-10.fc11.noarch.rpm cjkunifonts-uming-0.2.20080216.1-10.fc11.noarch.rpm
How reproducible: 100%
Steps to Reproduce: 1. For example, the following URL:
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/policycoreutils/po/ja.po?root=elvis&...
Actual results: See attached
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=475743
--- Comment #1 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-10 03:36:20 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=326463) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=326463) screenshot with VLGothic 20081203
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=475743
--- Comment #2 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-10 03:37:06 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=326465) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=326465) screenshot with VLGothic 20081029
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=475743
--- Comment #3 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-10 03:39:27 EDT --- Also with 20081203 the glyphs of arabic numerals frequently changes.
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=475743
Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?
--- Comment #4 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com 2008-12-10 05:59:25 EDT --- my rawhide box is broken now so I can't do any testing... so just guessing, is this issue gone if you do remove /etc/fonts/conf.d/64-ttf-arphic-uming.conf or add testing for Chinese like:
<match> <test name="lang" compare="contains"> <string>zh</string> </test> <test name="family"> <string>sans-serif</string> </test> <edit name="family" mode="prepend" binding="same"> <string>AR PL UMing HK</string> <string>AR PL UMing CN</string> </edit> </match>
instead of preference alias?
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=475743
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo? |
--- Comment #5 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-10 06:37:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4)
is this issue gone if you do remove /etc/fonts/conf.d/64-ttf-arphic-uming.conf
It seems this works
or add testing for Chinese like:
<snip>
instead of preference alias?
Would you tell me to what file?
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=475743
--- Comment #6 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net 2008-12-10 15:00:50 EDT --- Behdad recently wanted to experiment with new syntax to deal with fonts that need locale-specific ordering. You should try to ping him to check if he hasn't a better fontconfig recipe.
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=475743
--- Comment #7 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com 2008-12-10 20:13:50 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5)
Would you tell me to what file?
Try to replace:
<alias> <family>sans-serif</family> <prefer> <family>AR PL UMing HK</family> <family>AR PL UMing CN</family> </prefer> </alias>
in 64-ttf-arphic-uming.conf with the above for sans-serif.
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=475743
Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |besfahbo@redhat.com Flag| |needinfo?(besfahbo@redhat.c | |om)
--- Comment #8 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com 2008-12-10 20:19:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6)
Behdad recently wanted to experiment with new syntax to deal with fonts that need locale-specific ordering. You should try to ping him to check if he hasn't a better fontconfig recipe.
Aha. Cc'ing him.
Behdad, do you have any idea to resolve a kind of locale-specific ordering issue in fontconfig?
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=475743
--- Comment #9 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-12 01:43:41 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #5)
Would you tell me to what file?
Try to replace:
<alias> <family>sans-serif</family> <prefer> <family>AR PL UMing HK</family> <family>AR PL UMing CN</family> </prefer> </alias>
in 64-ttf-arphic-uming.conf with the above for sans-serif.
Thanks. This seems to work for Japanese locale (I cannot test for Chinese locale because I don't use it and I don't know where to check...)
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=475743
--- Comment #10 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-12-12 01:54:38 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=326711) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=326711) glyphs of arabic numerals
By the way is it a different issue that the glyphs (especially the widths) of arabic numerals change according to contexts?
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=475743
Behdad Esfahbod besfahbo@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(besfahbo@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #11 from Behdad Esfahbod besfahbo@redhat.com 2008-12-17 02:00:44 EDT --- I had an idea but I tested quickly and it didn't work. I'll think about it again. I have some other ideas about how to fix the CJK issues in fontconfig. I'm currently working on fontconfig. I'll see if I get to those.
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=475743
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |i18n Component|VLGothic-fonts |fontconfig Blocks| |446452 AssignedTo|ryo-dairiki@users.sourcefor |besfahbo@redhat.com |ge.net |
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=475743
Caius "kaio" Chance cchance@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |cchance@redhat.com
--- Comment #12 from Caius "kaio" Chance cchance@redhat.com 2009-01-29 19:30:38 EDT --- I could lower the ranking of uming (Chinese fonts) by increasing the number of the .conf file.
Which side would you prefer to make the changes? VL Gothic, Uming, or fontconfig?
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=475743
Caius "kaio" Chance cchance@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
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=475743
--- Comment #13 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2009-01-29 20:32:39 EDT --- The Japanese problem seems to be with Sans: eg if one switches the desktop application font to Monospace then VLGothic is used correctly.
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=475743
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Many chinese glyphs on |Japanese desktop defaulting |Japanese environment |to Chinese fonts
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=475743
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |Regression
--- Comment #14 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2009-01-29 21:37:50 EDT --- Reverting to fontconfig-2.6.0-3.fc10 also fixes the problem, so this really does look like a fontconfig regression or change of behaviour.
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=475743
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |476774
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=475743
--- Comment #15 from Caius "kaio" Chance cchance@redhat.com 2009-01-29 22:42:21 EDT --- Sample patch. Will modify sans and monospace if needed:
http://fedorapeople.org/~cchance/packages/cjkuni-fonts/cjkuni-uming-fonts-0....
http://fedorapeople.org/~cchance/packages/cjkuni-fonts/cjkuni-fonts-common-0...
http://fedorapeople.org/~cchance/packages/cjkuni-fonts/cjkuni-fonts-compat-0...
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=475743
Caius "kaio" Chance cchance@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(mtasaka@ioa.s.u-t | |okyo.ac.jp)
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=475743
--- Comment #16 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2009-01-30 02:55:01 EDT --- Thanks fixes the Japanese desktop problem for me. :)
I still don't understand the discrepancy between monospace and sans... Behdad, any idea?
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=475743
--- Comment #17 from Caius "kaio" Chance cchance@redhat.com 2009-01-30 04:09:59 EDT --- If it didn't break some other things, then I'm going to build to rawhide.
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=475743
--- Comment #18 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com 2009-01-30 06:42:18 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12)
I could lower the ranking of uming (Chinese fonts) by increasing the number of the .conf file.
Which side would you prefer to make the changes? VL Gothic, Uming, or fontconfig?
No options for VLGothic-fonts at least because this issue doesn't happen without cjkuni-fonts.
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=475743
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(mtasaka@ioa.s.u-t | |okyo.ac.jp) |
--- Comment #19 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-30 08:50:25 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=330464) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=330464) screenshot again
Still seeing many Chinese glyphs.
Note that this screenshot is taken with fontconfig-2.6.95-1.git.66.gb162bfb.fc11 With reverting to fontconfig-2.6.0-3.fc10 it goes _much_ better, however it does not remove this problem entirely.
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=475743
--- Comment #20 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-30 09:21:32 EDT --- For record:
# rpm -qf /etc/fonts/conf.d/* | sort | uniq VLGothic-fonts-20081203-2.fc11.noarch VLGothic-fonts-proportional-20081203-2.fc11.noarch baekmuk-ttf-batang-fonts-2.2-17.fc11.noarch baekmuk-ttf-dotum-fonts-2.2-17.fc11.noarch baekmuk-ttf-gulim-fonts-2.2-17.fc11.noarch baekmuk-ttf-hline-fonts-2.2-17.fc11.noarch cjkuni-uming-fonts-0.2.20080216.1-18.fc11.noarch dejavu-lgc-sans-fonts-2.28-3.fc11.noarch dejavu-lgc-sans-mono-fonts-2.28-3.fc11.noarch dejavu-lgc-serif-fonts-2.28-3.fc11.noarch dejavu-sans-fonts-2.28-3.fc11.noarch dejavu-sans-mono-fonts-2.28-3.fc11.noarch dejavu-serif-fonts-2.28-3.fc11.noarch fontconfig-2.6.95-1.git.66.gb162bfb.fc11.i386 sazanami-gothic-fonts-0.20040629-6.20061016.fc11.noarch sazanami-mincho-fonts-0.20040629-6.20061016.fc11.noarch
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=475743
--- Comment #21 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2009-01-30 23:53:48 EDT --- (In reply to comment #19)
Created an attachment (id=330464)
--> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=330464) [details]
screenshot again Still seeing many Chinese glyphs.
What is the URL for that page?
I could be wrong but it could be a Unihan issue with firefox not knowing what language the page is in?
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=475743
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
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=475743
--- Comment #22 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-31 00:01:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21)
(In reply to comment #19)
Created an attachment (id=330464)
--> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=330464) [details] [details]
screenshot again Still seeing many Chinese glyphs.
What is the URL for that page?
Note that the glyph is wrong also on the other place (please look at gnome-panel in the picture: especially the glyph of "å ´æ‰€" is apparently not Japanese)
The URL is the same as the one in my comment 0.
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=475743
--- Comment #23 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2009-01-31 01:22:12 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=330518) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=330518) another screenshot
This is what it currently looks like for me, but I will try with a fresh rawhide install soon. :)
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=475743
--- Comment #24 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2009-01-31 02:24:10 EDT --- I just tried on a fresh rawhide install and it still looks good to me.
Tasaka-san, perhaps could you try again?
(Anyway unfortunately this fix/workaround won't be in F11Alpha anyway...)
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=475743
--- Comment #25 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-01-31 03:23:32 EDT --- Well, after some investigation, it seems that when I hide (i.e. add 'dot' to the file name) 65-baekmuk-ttf-dotum.conf (in baekmuk-ttf-dotum-fonts-2.2-17.fc11.noarch) it looks good now (even with fontconfig-2.6.95-1.git.66.gb162bfb.fc11)
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=475743
--- Comment #26 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2009-01-31 05:14:30 EDT --- Ah I see, thank you. Yes, baekmuk dotum is no longer installed by default, but sounds like a similar workaround is needed there too.
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=475743
--- Comment #27 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2009-01-31 05:15:03 EDT --- would still appreciate some comment from Behdad...
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=475743
--- Comment #28 from Caius "kaio" Chance cchance@redhat.com 2009-01-31 07:07:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #24)
(Anyway unfortunately this fix/workaround won't be in F11Alpha anyway...)
I will push to F11 immediately when it is released.
(In reply to comment #25)
Well, after some investigation, it seems that when I hide (i.e. add 'dot' to the file name) 65-baekmuk-ttf-dotum.conf (in baekmuk-ttf-dotum-fonts-2.2-17.fc11.noarch) it looks good now (even with fontconfig-2.6.95-1.git.66.gb162bfb.fc11)
Hmm, then I should also work on baekmuk then.
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=475743
--- Comment #29 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-03 05:20:22 EDT --- It seems that with baekmuk-ttf-XXX-2.2-19.fc11, cjkuni-XXXX-0.2.20080216.1-20.fc11 Japanese glyphs are shown correctly.
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=475743
--- Comment #30 from Caius "kaio" Chance cchance@redhat.com 2009-02-03 19:51:38 EDT --- There are .conf templates from package fontpackages. I applied from that.
cjkuni-fonts is patched: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=81269
baekmuk-ttf-fonts is patched: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=81270
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=475743
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Component|fontconfig |cjkuni-fonts Resolution| |RAWHIDE AssignedTo|besfahbo@redhat.com |cchance@redhat.com
--- Comment #31 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2009-02-03 22:52:37 EDT --- No comment from Behdad so can probably close this for now.
Dunno if it is worth discussing the change of behaviour upstream...
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=475743
--- Comment #32 from Ryo Dairiki ryo-dairiki@users.sourceforge.net 2009-02-14 04:22:14 EDT --- On Fedora-10, the same bug appears after usual update.
VLGothic fonts: vlgothic-p-fonts-20090204-2.fc10.noarch vlgothic-fonts-20090204-2.fc10.noarch vlgothic-fonts-common-20090204-2.fc10.noarch
Baekmuk fonts: baekmuk-ttf-fonts-gulim-2.2-9.fc10.noarch baekmuk-ttf-fonts-dotum-2.2-9.fc10.noarch baekmuk-ttf-fonts-batang-2.2-9.fc10.noarch baekmuk-ttf-fonts-common-2.2-9.fc10.noarch baekmuk-ttf-fonts-hline-2.2-9.fc10.noarch baekmuk-bdf-fonts-2.2-5.fc9.noarch
Is this also related to this report?
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=475743
--- Comment #33 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2009-02-15 21:51:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #32)
On Fedora-10, the same bug appears after usual update. baekmuk-ttf-fonts-gulim-2.2-9.fc10.noarch baekmuk-ttf-fonts-dotum-2.2-9.fc10.noarch baekmuk-ttf-fonts-batang-2.2-9.fc10.noarch baekmuk-ttf-fonts-common-2.2-9.fc10.noarch baekmuk-ttf-fonts-hline-2.2-9.fc10.noarch baekmuk-bdf-fonts-2.2-5.fc9.noarch
It sounds like it could be. What if you remove the baekmuk fonts? (They are not default for Hangul anymore anyway.)
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=475743
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|RAWHIDE |
--- Comment #34 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-16 09:52:55 EDT --- fontconfig-2.6.97-3.g945d6a4.fc11 again reproduces this problem......
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=475743
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|cjkuni-fonts |fontconfig AssignedTo|cchance@redhat.com |besfahbo@redhat.com
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=475743
--- Comment #35 from Caius "kaio" Chance cchance@redhat.com 2009-02-16 10:54:14 EDT --- I have only built on rawhide. Let me backport that.
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=475743
--- Comment #36 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2009-02-16 22:43:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #35)
I have only built on rawhide. Let me backport that.
May be better to test first on f10.
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=475743
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(besfahbo@redhat.c | |om)
--- Comment #37 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2009-02-16 23:05:25 EDT --- Behdad, could you please update on this important issue?
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=475743
--- Comment #38 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-17 02:57:31 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=332187) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=332187) screenshot with old fontconfig
(In reply to comment #34)
fontconfig-2.6.97-3.g945d6a4.fc11 again reproduces this problem......
To clarify this, screenshot again. This one with (the old) fontconfig-2.6.95-1.git.66.gb162bfb.fc11.i386 . Looks fine.
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=475743
--- Comment #39 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-02-17 02:58:48 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=332188) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=332188) screenshot with new fontconfig
And screenshot with new fontconfig fontconfig-2.6.97-3.g945d6a4.fc11 Japanese font glyphs are not used.
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=475743
--- Comment #40 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2009-02-17 03:19:03 EDT --- Yes, I see un-core-fonts being used on the ja desktop - I will try to get the fontconfig files there updated soon.
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=475743
--- Comment #41 from Ryo Dairiki ryo-dairiki@users.sourceforge.net 2009-02-20 12:15:40 EDT --- At last, I've found that cjkunifonts-uming package is the cause of this problem in my environment.
It seems like gryphs from that package are chosen in some cases, even in Japanese environments. Japanese period followed by an alphabet is the one example.
After uninstalling that package, the problem goes away. And I've confirmed that reinstalling this package caused the problem again.
I'll send you a detailed report later.
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=475743
--- Comment #42 from Ryo Dairiki ryo-dairiki@users.sourceforge.net 2009-02-23 23:59:14 EDT --- Problem: - Chinese gryphs are shown when you use Monospace even in Japanese locale. - Some characters seems different in the same context, as different gryphs are selected according to the following characters. (For example, the width of the space character followed by "A (alphabet)" has different width with the one followed by "a (hiragana)".)
Reason:
Fontconfig choose proper gryph for virtual fonts, according to the current locale, and the context. If you write Japanese in Japanese locale, fontconfig seeks to fonts which has Japanese gryphs. It seems like some Chinese fonts also has Japanese gryphs by some reason. Maybe, they are in CJ unified regions, so we cannot fix this problem simply by eliminating them. Talking about the second problem, both Japanese fonts and DejaVu fonts have space characters, so fontconfig sometimes choose gryphs from Japanese fonts, and sometimes from DejaVu fonts.
Solution:
Change the gryph selection order of Fontconfig. In Japanese environment, gryphs from Japanese gryphs should be chosen first. In Chinese environment, gryphs from Chinese gryphs should be chosen first. Talking about DejaVu fonts, either locale specific gryphs or DejaVu gryphs should be chosen independently with the context. This change maybe require huge change in fonts.conf and might need some patches in the source of fontconfig too.
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=475743
Behdad Esfahbod besfahbo@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(besfahbo@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #43 from Behdad Esfahbod besfahbo@redhat.com 2009-03-11 11:51:10 EDT --- I'm still confused. From what I understand, an alias I added in recent fontconfig updates is causing this. If that's true, which alias, and if you can move it further down to not cause the bug, what's the patch? Thanks.
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=475743
--- Comment #44 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2009-03-11 20:32:28 EDT --- Ok - I think we have to wait for an installable rawhide or F11 Beta for further testing. With various font .conf files added to CJK fonts I think things are a bit better now but there may still be some more finer adjusts needed for F11?
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=475743
Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jkeating@redhat.com Flag| |needinfo?
--- Comment #45 from Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com 2009-03-16 14:02:59 EDT --- Rawhide should be installable, what I need is a clear idea if this is really a beta blocker issue or not.
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=475743
Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo? |
--- Comment #46 from Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2009-03-16 14:14:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #45)
Rawhide should be installable, what I need is a clear idea if this is really a beta blocker issue or not.
Well, I tried the current fontconfig-2.6.99.behdad-3.fc11 and it seems be working for me. So tagging this fontconfig as f11-beta may be a good idea.
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=475743
Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE
--- Comment #47 from Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com 2009-03-16 18:09:20 EDT --- We just tagged so I'll close this rawhide.
fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org