[Bug 839303] New: [ta_IN] Submission of glyphs for Tamil fractions/symbols to be included in the Lohit Tamil fonts
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839303
Bug ID: 839303
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
Severity: unspecified
Version: rawhide
Priority: unspecified
CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, psatpute(a)redhat.com
Assignee: psatpute(a)redhat.com
Summary: [ta_IN] Submission of glyphs for Tamil
fractions/symbols to be included in the Lohit Tamil
fonts
Regression: ---
Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Unspecified
Reporter: samjnaa(a)gmail.com
Type: Bug
Documentation: ---
Hardware: Unspecified
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
Component: lohit-tamil-fonts
Product: Fedora
Created attachment 597580
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=597580&action=edit
Lohit Tamil, Lohit Tamil Classical and Lohit Tamil Chart fonts with new
characters
Contributing new Tamil glyphs to Lohit Tamil family:
----------------------------------------------------
I have prepared a proposal to encode 62 characters for old Tamil fractions and
symbols to be encoded in Unicode. Seven of these are being proposed for the
Tamil BMP block and rest for a new Tamil Supplement block in the SMP.
For the glyphs required for the code chart I have largely devised new glyphs
based on existing Lohit Tamil glyphs under the derivative rights granted by the
OFL. Some glyphs which could not be derived, I created myself using Inkscape
and other tools.
I would like to donate all these glyphs to the Lohit project under the OFL for
eventual inclusion into the Lohit Tamil/Tamil Classical fonts. For now they may
be included in the PUA of an unofficial fork of the Lohit Tamil fonts. When
they are eventually encoded in Unicode, they may be officially mapped to the
new codepoints and included in the official distribution of the Lohit
Tamil/Tamil Classical fonts.
Using Lohit Tamil glyphs for Unicode code chart:
------------------------------------------------
In the proposal, I am also requesting the Unicode / ISO 10646 project editors
to use the Lohit Tamil font for the Unicode Tamil code charts (Tamil block, and
newly proposed Tamil Supplement block) because:
1) When the new characters are encoded and my glyphs used for the code chart,
it would look good to maintain stylistic uniformity in the code chart, and my
designed glyphs are stylistically like the Lohit Tamil glyphs as they are
mostly derived from them. So it would be good to use Lohit Tamil glyphs
throughout.
2) There are currently 72 Tamil characters in Unicode 6.1.0. The present
proposal almost doubles the number with 62 new characters. It would be a
significant and unnecessary effort for anyone else to duplicate my glyph design
work for so many characters to keep in with the current Tamil code chart font
style. So switching to Lohit Tamil for all glyphs is easier and advisable.
3) Personally I think the glyphs of Lohit Tamil are much "cleaner" than the
existing Tamil code chart font, and more representative of the nature and
beauty of the Tamil script.
4) The OFL already permits the use of the Lohit Tamil font (and its
derivatives) for any purpose, so there are (hopefully) no legal issues
pertaining which need to be cleared between Unicode and Red Hat (but of course,
IANAL).
I also sincerely request the cooperation of the Lohit / Fedora / Red Hat people
in permitting the Lohit Tamil glyphs to be used for the Unicode Tamil code
charts (i.e. for two blocks).
Fonts with new glyphs:
----------------------
I attach herewith a ZIP file containing three font files:
1) Lohit Tamil font, with newly proposed character glyphs mapped to the PUA.
2) Lohit Tamil Classical font, likewise.
3) Lohit Tamil Chart font, containing only glyphs required for the code chart
(for existing and new characters, totalling 134 in number, across two blocks
Tamil and Tamil Supplement) mapped to the existing and proposed characters for
convenience of Unicode / ISO 10646 editors.
Behaviour of new characters and requirement from the fonts' side:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
None of the newly proposed characters are combining characters in the sense of
combining marks. However, most of them are proposed for a new SMP Tamil block
and care might need to be taken for proper mapping so that on all platforms the
SMP characters are accessible.
There is only one sequence of characters which needs to ligate: TAMIL DIGIT ONE
௧ + TAMIL SIGN KALAM (which looks like TAMIL LETTER LLA ள) should always
ligate. I have also provided the ligature glyph after the glyphs for the
individual characters (mapped to PUA E03F) in the fonts 1 and 2 above. I have
not added any substitution mapping however as it is for now only temporarily in
the PUA.
Etcetera:
---------
It is my intention to submit the proposal within a week or so and I will
upload/link here a copy of the proposal.
If at all any changes are required to the set of glyphs as a result of any
feedback from scholars or other sources, I will upload fresh TTF font files.
I thank everyone, especially Pravin Satpute, for their support regarding this.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
6 years, 4 months
[Bug 841947] New: [te_IN] Add support for Telugu nakaarapollu and repha to Lohit Telugu font
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841947
Bug ID: 841947
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
Severity: unspecified
Version: rawhide
Priority: unspecified
CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, psatpute(a)redhat.com
Assignee: psatpute(a)redhat.com
Summary: [te_IN] Add support for Telugu nakaarapollu and repha
to Lohit Telugu font
Regression: ---
Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Unspecified
Reporter: samjnaa(a)gmail.com
Type: Bug
Documentation: ---
Hardware: Unspecified
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
Component: lohit-telugu-fonts
Product: Fedora
Created attachment 599423
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=599423&action=edit
Glyphs for Telugu nakaarapollu and repha
Telugu script has special form of vowelless NA called four-pronged
nakaarapollu. Strictly speaking nakaarapollu means nakaara + pollu=virama so
regular form of vowelless-NA న్ is also nakaarapollu but Telugu old grammarian
Brown has specifically called a distinct form as nakaarapollu.
The recommended model for getting Telugu nakaarapollu is NA + ZWJ + VIRAMA.
Please find more details in the document:
https://sites.google.com/site/jamadagni/files/utcsubmissions/11409-telugu...
Likewise Telugu script has old repha form which is not found in common usage in
current Telugu script. A modern-style Telugu font can allow user to select
old-style reph by using the sequence RA + VIRAMA + ZWJ + CONSONANT because the
plain RA + VIRAMA + CONSONANT would be presented as RA with sub-base form of
CONSONANT.
Please find more details in the document:
https://sites.google.com/site/jamadagni/files/utcsubmissions/12017-telugu...
These two documents have been approved by the UTC in the Feb 2012 meeting:
http://www.unicode.org/L2/L2012/12007.htm
<quote>
[130-A15] Action Item for Deborah Anderson, Editorial Committee: Update the
core specification text on Telugu nakaara-pollu based on input in document
L2/11-409.
[130-A16] Action Item for Deborah Anderson: Incorporate text on Telugu Reph
from L2/12-017 into the Telugu block description.
</quote>
It is requested to:
1) add the glyphs for nakaarapollu and repha to the Lohit Telugu font:
2) add substitution mapping of NA + ZWJ + VIRAMA to the nakaarapollu glyph
3) add requisite OT markups for repha glyph so that a compliant OT system can
recognize the repha glyph and render sequence of RA + VIRAMA + ZWJ + CONS using
that glyph.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
6 years, 4 months
[Bug 1076190] New: Rendering of Unicode tie bars could be improved
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1076190
Bug ID: 1076190
Summary: Rendering of Unicode tie bars could be improved
Product: Fedora
Version: 20
Component: liberation-fonts
Severity: low
Assignee: psatpute(a)redhat.com
Reporter: rkaldari(a)wikimedia.org
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
Created attachment 874108
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=874108&action=edit
comparison between Liberation Sans and Helvetica
Description of problem:
The rendering of the two Unicode tie bar combining characters (U+035E and
U+035F) is not ideal. In particular the characters are quite short and far away
from the characters they are tying together. This makes it appear more like a
misplaced macron than a tie bar. The rendering in Liberation Sans appears to be
equivalent to that of Arial which has the same issues. The rendering in
Helvetica is better (see attachment 1).
In particular, because the under tie bar (U+035F) is so far away from the other
characters, it sometimes gets clipped when rendered, as it appears to fall
slightly outside of the bounding box for the line height (see attachment 2).
My suggestion would be to make the length of both tie bars slightly longer, and
to move both of them slightly closer to the characters they are intended to tie
together.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
12-Mar-2014 (2.x)
How reproducible:
Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install latest Liberation Sans (and Helvetica if you want to compare)
2. Go to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Kaldari/Font_test_2
Actual results:
Tie bars should be slightly longer and closer to the other characters.
Expected results:
Tie bar are quite short and far away.
Additional info:
See attachments for more info.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4qagSOJtp5&a=cc_unsubscribe
6 years, 4 months
[Bug 1084227] New: Arrow symbols too small and not nicely aligned
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084227
Bug ID: 1084227
Summary: Arrow symbols too small and not nicely aligned
Product: Fedora
Version: 20
Component: liberation-fonts
Assignee: psatpute(a)redhat.com
Reporter: Eduard.Braun2(a)gmx.de
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
Created attachment 882471
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=882471&action=edit
testcase with some exemplary arrows
The arrow symbols contained in Liberation fonts seem to be too small and also a
little mis-aligned.
As an example consider the attached testcase which contains left/right/up/down
arrows exemplarily. The attached screenshot is a rendering of this file to
illustrate the issue:
- The arrows are much to small making them hardly discernible,
especially at small font sizes.
- The horizontally aligned arrows are positioned too low (nearly at the
baseline).
- Also visible: Hinting for the vertically aligned arrows is bad.
The screenshot was created with Firefox 28.0 on Windows 7.
The installed version of the Liberation fonts is 2.00.1
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kmf7UnRYux&a=cc_unsubscribe
6 years, 4 months
[Bug 1319249] New: incorrect use of Requires(pre)?
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1319249
Bug ID: 1319249
Summary: incorrect use of Requires(pre)?
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: ghostscript-fonts
Assignee: twaugh(a)redhat.com
Reporter: jsilhan(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, twaugh(a)redhat.com
We've identified your package for having `Requires(pre)` RPM flag without
`Requires` [1]. `Requires(pre)` rpm tag could be interpreted wrongly, so to
prevent any harm to Fedora users I am notifying you about this fact.
Any package that is specified in `Requires(pre)` could be freely removed.
Citing from RPM pages:
```
If there are no other dependencies on the package providing /usr/sbin/useradd,
that package is permitted to be removed from the system after installation(!)
``` [2]
If you really rely on dependency just during the installation process and your
package don't necessary require the dependency for the proper run of your
application then ignore this bug report and close it as NOTABUG. Otherwise add
to your spec file additional `Requires` for the dependency, please.
[1] paste.fedoraproject.org/341611/82208431
[2] http://www.rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/MoreOnDependencies
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
6 years, 5 months
[Bug 477389] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
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: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477389
Summary: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: ghostscript-fonts
AssignedTo: twaugh(a)redhat.com
ReportedBy: nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: twaugh(a)redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list(a)redhat.com
Classification: Fedora
This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or
several font files:
repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb'
-f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e
's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq
Unfortunately the script
does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can
close this bug report now.
Otherwise, you should know that:
- Fedora guidelines
demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_font...
- our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships
fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel
package.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts
Please make
your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide.
If your package is not
principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage
is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can
always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed
in the correct fontconfig directories.
It is preferred to make a font package or
subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines
requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a
font family is given on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family
The new
templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe.
The
following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: -
andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts -
dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts -
gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts -
gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts -
gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts
- gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts -
gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts -
gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts
If you have any remaining
questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at
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.
6 years, 5 months
[Bug 1110646] New: woff file missing on purpose?
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1110646
Bug ID: 1110646
Summary: woff file missing on purpose?
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: fontawesome-fonts
Assignee: pvoborni(a)redhat.com
Reporter: tomspur(a)fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
pvoborni(a)redhat.com
Description of problem:
ipython shows this warning:
2014-06-16 20:47:56.421 [tornado.access] WARNING | 404 GET
/static/components/font-awesome/font/fontawesome-webfont.woff?v=3.2.1
(127.0.0.1) 0.37ms
referer=http://localhost:8888/static/style/style.min.css?v=7775081fa91df3822d16b2087bc2c8dd
Would it be possible to also add the .woff file to fontawesome-webfont-web or
is it left out on purpose?
How reproducible:
always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. open ipython-notebook
Actual results:
no fontawesome-webfont.woff
Expected results:
fontawesome-webfont.woff
See also #1006575 for the ipython warning above.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dtK3lFi0PP&a=cc_unsubscribe
6 years, 8 months
[Bug 1290878] New: macros.fonts uses %define instead of %global
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290878
Bug ID: 1290878
Summary: macros.fonts uses %define instead of %global
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: fontpackages
Assignee: nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net
Reporter: tibbs(a)math.uh.edu
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net, paul(a)frixxon.co.uk,
tagoh(a)redhat.com
While working on some compatibility macros for EPEL (to let the older branches
use some of the new RPM functionality without ifdefs) I found my macros broke
nothing except the font packages. After some bugging I found that use of
%define in the %_font_pkg() macro will expand itself recursively when expanded
in certain contexts. It seems to work currently by luck.
Changing that one %define to %global appears to work and generates RPMs which
differ from the current packages by nothing other than timestamps.
Is there a specific reason that %define is used there? As I understand it, the
general rule is that you should use %global unless you know that you really
need the special and difficult to explain behavior of %define. There's no
comment in the macros file about this, so I suspect that the use of %define is
not intentional.
Unfortunately this is holding up some work I'm doing so I'd like to get this
pushed out at least for EL6 and EL5 as soon as is reasonable. I'll do a
complete rebuild of all font packages and rpmdiff against current rawhide as
well as EPEL5 and 6 and post it here to make sure there's no breakage, and I'm
happy to push a package with that one line patched to any branches you desire.
Just let me know.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tEr6H2XzHZ&a=cc_unsubscribe
6 years, 8 months