November 2017 - fonts-bugs - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 1509790] New: fc-query is generating weird 'id 0' Provides on fonts

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509790 Bug ID: 1509790 Summary: fc-query is generating weird 'id 0' Provides on fonts Product: Fedora Version: 26 Component: fontconfig Severity: high Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com Reporter: ngompa13(a)gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: ajax(a)redhat.com, alexl(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, john.j5live(a)gmail.com, mbarnes(a)fastmail.com, mclasen(a)redhat.com, pnemade(a)redhat.com, rhughes(a)redhat.com, rstrode(a)redhat.com, sandmann(a)redhat.com, tagoh(a)redhat.com Description of problem: When I use fc-query to query a font, I get a weird item "id 0" in the list of things returned back from fc-query. This is screwing up dependency generation for new font packages, which get an annoyingly awful "Provides: 0" added to the package. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 2.12.6-3.fc26 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Install google-noto-sans-fonts (or any other TrueType/OpenType font package) 2. Run "fc-query --format '%{=pkgkit}' /usr/share/fonts/google-noto/NotoSans-Regular.ttf" (or your preferred fonts) Actual results: [~]$ fc-query --format '%{=pkgkit}' /usr/share/fonts/google-noto/NotoSans-Regular.ttf id 0 font(notosans) font(:lang=aa) ... Expected results: [~]$ fc-query --format '%{=pkgkit}' /usr/share/fonts/google-noto/NotoSans-Regular.ttf font(notosans) font(:lang=aa) ... Additional info: This doesn't occur in RHEL 7 (fontconfig-2.10.95-11.el7) nor openSUSE Leap 42.2 (fontconfig-2.11.1-2.2) nor Fedora 25 (fontconfig-2.12.1-1.fc25), but occurs in Fedora 26 and newer. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

5 years, 4 months

1
7
0 / 0

[Bug 1513011] New: freetype-devel.i686 caused pkgconf downgrade

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1513011 Bug ID: 1513011 Summary: freetype-devel.i686 caused pkgconf downgrade Product: Fedora Version: 27 Component: freetype Assignee: mkasik(a)redhat.com Reporter: litimetal(a)gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: ajax(a)redhat.com, alexl(a)redhat.com, caillon+fedoraproject(a)gmail.com, fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, gnome-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, john.j5live(a)gmail.com, kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org, mbarnes(a)fastmail.com, mclasen(a)redhat.com, mkasik(a)redhat.com, rhughes(a)redhat.com, rstrode(a)redhat.com, sandmann(a)redhat.com Created attachment 1352027 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1352027&action=edit dnf.log Description of problem: Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): freetype-devel i686 2.8-6.fc27 How reproducible: Every time Steps to Reproduce: 1. sudo dnf install freetype-devel.i686 2. 3. Actual results: Downgrading: libpkgconf pkgconf pkgconf-m4 pkgconf-pkg-config Expected results: Additional info: $ rpm -q pkgconf pkgconf-1.3.10-1.fc27.x86_64 $ rpm -q freetype-devel freetype-devel-2.8-6.fc27.x86_64 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

5 years, 4 months

1
2
0 / 0

[Bug 1509386] Review Request: polarsys-b612-fonts - A typeface designed for reading comfort and safety in aeroplane cockpits

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509386 --- Comment #4 from Peter Oliver <mavit(a)mavit.org.uk> --- Thanks. SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mavit/polarsys-b612-fonts... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1504433] New: thai-arundina-fonts-0.2.2 is available

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1504433 Bug ID: 1504433 Summary: thai-arundina-fonts-0.2.2 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: thai-arundina-fonts Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: pwu(a)redhat.com Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, pwu(a)redhat.com Latest upstream release: 0.2.2 Current version/release in rawhide: 0.2.1-3.fc27 URL: http://linux.thai.net/pub/thailinux/software/fonts-sipa-arundina/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/4964/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

5 years, 4 months

1
8
0 / 0

[Bug 1503250] New: Outdated package

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1503250 Bug ID: 1503250 Summary: Outdated package Product: Fedora Version: 26 Component: adobe-source-sans-pro-fonts Assignee: alexis.lameire(a)gmail.com Reporter: hitori.gm(a)gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: alexis.lameire(a)gmail.com, fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, pikachu.2014(a)gmail.com Current package version (1.050-7) is 3 years old which is missing Cyrillic and Greek support. The latest version (2.020R-ro/1.075R-it) can be found at https://github.com/adobe-fonts/source-sans-pro/releases/tag/2.020R-ro%2F1... P.S.: bug 1246765 has a patch with updated spec provided by Michael Kuhn. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

5 years, 4 months

1
9
0 / 0

[Bug 1469712] New: font antialiasing/hinting is not working on Fedora 26

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1469712 Bug ID: 1469712 Summary: font antialiasing/hinting is not working on Fedora 26 Product: Fedora Version: 26 Component: freetype Severity: high Assignee: mkasik(a)redhat.com Reporter: mchehab(a)infradead.org QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: behdad(a)fedoraproject.org, fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org, mkasik(a)redhat.com Description of problem: After upgrading from Fedora 25 to Fedora 26, font hinting doesn't work anymore. All fonts look really ugly on my 32' monitor, and changing font antialias/hint options at Gnome, Plasma or Mate doesn't produce any visible changes anymore. With Fedora 25, I used freetype-freeword from rpmfusion, as it produced a better result than the default freetype font hinting (although both work). On Fedora 26, neither with or without freetype-freeword I can adjust font hint/antialias anymore, as those options don't work anymore. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): freetype-2.7.1-9.fc26.x86_64 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

5 years, 4 months

1
10
0 / 0

[Bug 1509386] Review Request: polarsys-b612-fonts - A typeface designed for reading comfort and safety in aeroplane cockpits

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509386 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl --- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> --- > %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) Most likely this is not needed. > rm -fr %{buildroot} Not needed [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags_and_Sections]. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1510218] New: fonttools-3.19.0 is available

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1510218 Bug ID: 1510218 Summary: fonttools-3.19.0 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: fonttools Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: pnemade(a)redhat.com Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, pnemade(a)redhat.com, sshedmak(a)redhat.com Latest upstream release: 3.19.0 Current version/release in rawhide: 3.18.0-1.fc28 URL: https://github.com/fonttools/fonttools/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/7388/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

5 years, 4 months

1
3
0 / 0

[Bug 1496761] "Noto Color Emoji" would be a better default emoji font than "Emoji One"

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496761 --- Comment #17 from Bastien Nocera <bnocera(a)redhat.com> --- (In reply to Jeremy Bicha from comment #16) > (In reply to Bastien Nocera from comment #15) > > We know all this, but decided that it was the best solution for this purpose > > already. There should be discussions about this on the Fedora Workstation > > list, as well as in the GNOME bugzilla and/or wiki. If in doubt about any of > > those, I'd be happy repeating those arguments on the fontconfig list, if you > > send an email there and CC: me. > > 1. I don't think you've had these conversations as broadly as you remember. <snip> > To summarize your position since you didn't mention it here: You don't want > to use the same emoji as Android because you see the emoji choice as a brand > recognition opportunity. I'm not sure our users will see it the same way. Again, not the place to discuss this. I discussed this with Allan and Jakub, who agreed with this choice, Behdad and Akira, who both agreed to give EmojiTwo time to be built for our purposes, which we hope would happen within the next year. Most of those discussions happened nearly a year ago, with much shorter discussions around GUADEC this year to re-affirm that EmojiOne would be chosen. Some of the discussions which I thought happened on the public fontconfig list actually happened in private. I'm not sure why the fontconfig maintainer CC:ed folks instead of making the discussion happen on the list. In any case, that ship has sailed. If you want to ship something else in Ubuntu, or Debian, it's easy enough to do. If you want to have a discussion about the default choice, again, here is not the place. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1496761] "Noto Color Emoji" would be a better default emoji font than "Emoji One"

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496761 --- Comment #16 from Jeremy Bicha <jbicha(a)ubuntu.com> --- (In reply to Bastien Nocera from comment #15) > We know all this, but decided that it was the best solution for this purpose > already. There should be discussions about this on the Fedora Workstation > list, as well as in the GNOME bugzilla and/or wiki. If in doubt about any of > those, I'd be happy repeating those arguments on the fontconfig list, if you > send an email there and CC: me. 1. I don't think you've had these conversations as broadly as you remember. a. https://wiki.gnome.org/Design/OS/Emoji says nothing about preferring a particular emoji font. b. You shut this thread down immediately: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/desktop@lists.fedoraproject... c. I haven't been able to find any fontconfig list discussion of this issue. d. This bug has been closed without hardly any discussion, and they were closed by a fix that appears to me to be side-stepping the actual bug report and title. e. There was an October 23 Fedora Workstation meeting. Based on my reading of the logs, I think it's fair to say that if it wasn't for your opinion, the team would have decided the other direction (Noto instead of EmojiOne). 2. As far as Fedora 27 goes, it looks like the Emoji One decision is final. Ok. I understand freezes and Fedora is welcome to make its own decisions. 3. Here are my objections: a. You have said repeatedly (in the fontconfig commit and the October 23 meeting) that Emoji One/Two is GNOME's preferred emoji font. b. EmojiTwo in its current form is unpackagable. Comment #14 here gives hope, but currently that is vaporware. Therefore, I expect many GNOME distros to be choosing Noto Color Emoji and so I object to the characterization that this is GNOME's decision because I believe you didn't actually talk to other GNOME distros about this. To summarize your position since you didn't mention it here: You don't want to use the same emoji as Android because you see the emoji choice as a brand recognition opportunity. I'm not sure our users will see it the same way. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

5 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts-bugs November 2017