July 2008 - fonts-bugs - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Issue 43029] support PS-OpenType/OTF/(SFNT with CFF) fonts for PDF export and printing

by softadm＠openoffice.org

To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=43029 ------- Additional comments from softadm(a)openoffice.org Fri Jul 25 06:35:22 +0000 2008 ------- Big thanks for finally announcing a target milestone ;-) My vote for OOo-3.1, since many users expected this feature to already appear in 3.0 Best regards, Wolfgang --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

15 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 453016] Review Request: un-core-fonts - Korean TrueType fonts

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 report. Summary: Review Request: un-core-fonts - Korean TrueType fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453016 ------- Additional Comments From petersen(a)redhat.com 2008-07-25 02:33 EST ------- I am assuming attachment 312229. -- 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, or are watching someone who is.

15 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 453016] Review Request: un-core-fonts - Korean TrueType fonts

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 report. Summary: Review Request: un-core-fonts - Korean TrueType fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453016 ------- Additional Comments From petersen(a)redhat.com 2008-07-25 02:28 EST ------- Sorry for the slow response. Those two files are quite different. Which one are you intending for the review? :) -- 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, or are watching someone who is.

15 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 455754] New: Backport version 1.04 to Fedora 9.

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 report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455754 Summary: Backport version 1.04 to Fedora 9. Product: Fedora Version: 9 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: low Priority: low Component: liberation-fonts AssignedTo: cchance(a)redhat.com ReportedBy: cchance(a)redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-fonts-bugs-list(a)redhat.com Description of problem: liberation-fonts on Fedora 9 needed to be updated. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): liberation-fonts-1.03-1.fc9 How reproducible: N/A Steps to Reproduce: N/A Actual results: Version 1.03. Expected results: Version 1.04. Additional info: N/A -- 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, or are watching someone who is.

15 years, 9 months

1
5
0 / 0

[Bug 456582] Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst

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 report. Summary: Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456582 nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-bugs- | |list(a)redhat.com -- 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, or are watching someone who is.

15 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 456527] Review Request: gentium-basic-fonts - Gentium Basic Font Family

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 report. Summary: Review Request: gentium-basic-fonts - Gentium Basic Font Family https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456527 nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ajax(a)redhat.com, | |besfahbo(a)redhat.com, | |twaugh(a)redhat.com, | |tcallawa(a)redhat.com, fedora- | |fonts-bugs-list(a)redhat.com -- 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, or are watching someone who is.

15 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 456345] Review Request: sportrop-fonts - A multiline decorative font

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 report. Summary: Review Request: sportrop-fonts - A multiline decorative font https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456345 ------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net 2008-07-24 17:18 EST ------- Hi Jon, After discussing it on various forums the consensus seems to be that only the OTF (OpenType CFF) version should be packaged. So you can simplify the whole thing considerably. I apologize for waiting so long to get this part clarified -- 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, or are watching someone who is.

15 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 456580] Multiple severe problems with texlive-texfm-fonts

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 report. Summary: Multiple severe problems with texlive-texfm-fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456580 nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ajax(a)redhat.com, | |besfahbo(a)redhat.com, | |twaugh(a)redhat.com, | |tcallawa(a)redhat.com, fedora- | |fonts-bugs-list(a)redhat.com OtherBugsDependingO| |182235, 438943 nThis| | Severity|low |high Priority|low |high ------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net 2008-07-24 16:32 EST ------- 1. The textlive-texfm lists Utopia among its licenses. That probably means it includes Adobe Utopia or its derivatives. The Adobe Utopia font design is patented by Adobe and Fedora legal has not decided if Utopia and its derivatives were safe enough to be allowed in the repository yet (see bug #452317). In the meanwhile we should not ship any of those fonts in Fedora. 2. The textlive-texfm includes tex-gyre fonts. As the authors freely admit they lifted the GNU Ghostscript GPL fonts, changed their format, modified the result, and relicensed it all under their own license [1]. They don't list any authorization for this from the previous rights holders in their package. Since we can not ship the GPL bits they lifted under another license, and we can not ship the bits they added under the GPL without tex-gyre people authorization, the whole thing is un-distributable and must be removed [2] [1] page 8 of http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/afp05.pdf [2] http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-fonts-list/2008-July/msg00111.html In addition: A. This package is a legal nightmare and mixes material from many different origins and licensing (making any audit difficult, even though we *know* fonts are a legal minefield) B. This package is a livecd and bandwidth nightmare (monolithic dump of 56 MiBs of data !!!) C. This package wastes huge amounts of space by shipping the same fonts in many different formats, even though only one would be enough D. This package ships bulky forks of material already present in other distro packages (ghostscript font data), and no effort is made to consolidate them. Even though TEX users are not the only ones interested in ghostscript font fixes, and the PS1 format used by ghostscript fonts is probably the main remaining reason why the xorg package maintainers can not drop type1 support in X. E. This package ships resources that would be highly useful to most of our users (truetype and opentype fonts), but hides them in a tex-specific directory not exposed by system font libs. (some of them are even in our wishlists) For all those reasons: a. Please drop the Utopia fonts from the package immediately b. Please drop the Tex-gyre fonts from the package immediately c. Please notify the Tex-gyre authors on the behalf of Fedora so they fix their licensing d. Once this is done please package the Tex-Gyre fonts in a separate package (using the tex-gyre upstream releases, not the texlive repackaging). Since the TEX-Gyre font preferred modification format is metatype (as documented in their presentation) that means a package that build OpenType CFF fonts (OTF) from metatype sources (to respect the GPL) e. please use the distribution official font template for this package. When fonts are usable system wide they should be packaged as system font, and tex packages modified to use the system version. f. please add to this package fontconfig rules that declare the tex-gyre fonts valid substitutes to the adobe and ghostscript fonts g. please have this package subpackaged in a subpackage per font family (or create a separate package per font family) h. please work with the Ghostscript packager so Ghostscript is switched use those packages, so the old PS1 fonts can be retired (making ajax happy) i. Please work with the Ghostscript packager so Ghostscript and Tex-Gyre licensing is switched to GPL+font exception (so the fonts can be safely embedded in pdfs) j. please do the same repackaging for every truetype and opentype font in the package, so their licensing can be individually checked, they get installed system-wide (benefiting non-tex users), and the monster package is broken up in granular livecd-olpc-bandwidth friendly packages. Each time do use the distro font packaging guidelines (including the build-from-source bit), and do start from the font real upstreams (not the texlive/CTAN middlemen) http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FontException e. You can keep other fonts in legacy format in your package. But frankly if I were you I'd drop them. Each one needs legal crosschecking and if no one cared enough to convert them to a modern OTF/TTF format they're probably not that useful. Either way that part of the package should be user-optional at least -- 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, or are watching someone who is.

15 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Issue 43029] support PS-OpenType/OTF/(SFNT with CFF) fonts for PDF export and printing

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=43029 ------- Additional comments from nmailhot(a)openoffice.org Thu Jul 24 14:16:29 +0000 2008 ------- Thank you for the status update! --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

15 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Issue 43029] support PS-OpenType/OTF/(SFNT with CFF) fonts for PDF export and printing

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=43029 User hdu changed the following: What |Old value |New value ================================================================================ Target milestone|OOo Later |OOo 3.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Additional comments from hdu(a)openoffice.org Thu Jul 24 13:21:29 +0000 2008 ------- The good news is that CFF subsetting looks good for OOo 3.2, maybe even 3.1. Including hints and all that. Though CFF fonts may be common they are strange beasts, e.g. the length of some charstring opcodes depends on all instructions ever executed for one glyph and there are sooo many other implicit assumptions... anyway, the prototype works very well and getting it integrated into 3.x is quite certain. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

15 years, 9 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 July 2008