fonts-bugs March 2017

fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org

2 participants
92 discussions

[Bug 1319249] New: incorrect use of Requires(pre)?
by Red Hat Bugzilla 22 Nov '17

22 Nov '17

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.

2 3

[Bug 477389] New: Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
by Red Hat Bugzilla 22 Nov '17

22 Nov '17

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_fonts_… - 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_(2… 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.

2 12

[Bug 1260061] New: fallbacks for TmsRmn and Helv
by Red Hat Bugzilla 02 Sep '17

02 Sep '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1260061 Bug ID: 1260061 Summary: fallbacks for TmsRmn and Helv Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: fontconfig Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com Reporter: caolanm(a)redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, pnemade(a)redhat.com, tagoh(a)redhat.com External Bug ID: Document Foundation 91004 External Bug ID: Document Foundation 91004 There are MSOffice documents that refer to "TmsRmn" and "Helv" fonts, and fontconfig doesn't suggest suitable replacements. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/82860 "TmsRmn and Helv ... We still have the exact same fonts, but now under the names MS Sans Serif and MS Serif" https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/68536 "Font Family Bitstream Canon Adobe HP ----------- --------- ----- ----- -- Swiss (Helv) Swiss Swiss Helvetica Universe Roman (Tms Rmn) Dutch Dutch Times Roman CG Times" So "Helv" == "MS Serif" and both could be added as part of the Helvetica group of mappings I guess and "Tms Rmn" == "MS Sans Serif" and both are presumably then suitable for mapping to the "Nimbus Roman No9 L"/"Times New Roman" targets ? -- 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=XYv5MApiTj&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ fonts-bugs mailing list fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/postorius/fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org

2 4

[Bug 1397960] New: freetype-config --libtool prints path to non-existent libtool library file
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Aug '17

17 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1397960 Bug ID: 1397960 Summary: freetype-config --libtool prints path to non-existent libtool library file Product: Fedora Version: 25 Component: freetype Severity: medium Assignee: mkasik(a)redhat.com Reporter: jprajzne(a)redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: behdad(a)fedoraproject.org, desktop-qa-list(a)redhat.com, fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org, mkasik(a)redhat.com, tpelka(a)redhat.com Depends On: 1368141 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1368141 [Bug 1368141] freetype-config --libtool prints path to non-existent libtool library file -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

2 2

[Bug 1372368] New: freetype-2.6.5 and freetype-2.6.3 are ABI incompatible
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Aug '17

17 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1372368 Bug ID: 1372368 Summary: freetype-2.6.5 and freetype-2.6.3 are ABI incompatible Product: Fedora Version: 25 Component: freetype Assignee: mkasik(a)redhat.com Reporter: rc040203(a)freenet.de 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: With freetype-2.6.5, some freetype-internal functions, which were publicly accessible before were made inaccessible, e.g. FT_New_GlyphSlot, FT_Done_GlyphSlot Due to the fact the SONAME was not changed and no mass-rebuild performed for fc25, this change at least broke Inventor (Inventor uses FT_Done_GlyphSlot). I haven't tried to check and therefore don't know if this affects more packages. fc25 ships an fc24-built Inventor which now contains a reference to an unresolvable symbol which used to be provided by freetype. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): freetype-2.6.5 Additional info: - Inventor clearly is at fault to use private functions from freetype, but it had been this way for more than ca. 15 years. - IMHO, it's arguable whether freetype's SONAME should have been changed. libfreetype.so.6.12.3 and libfreetype.so.6.12.5 definitely are ABI incompatible. - It's not clear to me, why freetype made FT_Done_GlyphSlot inaccessible, but left other similar functions public. - ATM, I do not see an alternative but to "steal" FT_Done_GlyphSlot code from freetype and to incorporate it into Inventor, to work-around Inventor's problem on fedora >= 25. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

2 3

[Bug 1110646] New: woff file missing on purpose?
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Aug '17

16 Aug '17

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

2 16

[Bug 1417250] New: Please upgrade to dejavu-fonts 2.37
by Red Hat Bugzilla 15 Aug '17

15 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1417250 Bug ID: 1417250 Summary: Please upgrade to dejavu-fonts 2.37 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: dejavu-fonts Severity: medium Assignee: nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net Reporter: mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net, paul(a)frixxon.co.uk, peter(a)thecodergeek.com, smaitra(a)redhat.com We have dejavu-fonts 2.35, but dejavu-fonts 2.37 is available. It should be upgraded! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

2 2

[Bug 1374074] New: 1px changes in line height from bold <-> non-bold breaks various websites
by Red Hat Bugzilla 08 Aug '17

08 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1374074 Bug ID: 1374074 Summary: 1px changes in line height from bold <-> non-bold breaks various websites Product: Fedora Version: 24 Component: liberation-fonts Severity: high Assignee: psatpute(a)redhat.com Reporter: jonas(a)thiem.email 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 Description of problem: The liberation fonts as packaged in Fedora can change line height by 1px as reported by fontconfig if switched from bold to non-bold or vice versa. This can break various sites displayed in web browsers, and for example all gitlab code listings viewed on Fedora only (works fine on Ubuntu, Archlinux, ...) aren't lining up properly because of this with the line numbers, which makes the whole thing look like a big mess. A more detailed analysis can be found here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1296856 Please note I'm not sure who is the best involved party to fix this and whether e.g. the website should fix it on their side, however I tried playing around with CSS line-height and so far I didn't manage to make it line up myself in the affected configurations (but I'm no CSS expert). Therefore I'm filing a bug here as well, hoping some font expert can shed some light on the issue. There is also a firefox bug report here: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1296856 There is also a gitlab bug report here: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/20202 Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Version : 1.07.4 Release : 7.fc24 How reproducible: 100% at affected font sizes Steps to Reproduce: 1. Run an affected configuration (Firefox Nightly on Fedora should work, possibly also regular Firefox stable as packaged in Fedora) at an affected web browser zoom level (100%/standard should work for firefox) 2. Visit a gitlab source code listing of more than just ~10 lines, e.g. https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/app/controllers/groups_… 3. Look how line numbers and lines match up Actual results: Line numbers are not matching up Expected results: Line numbers are matching up Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

2 2

[Bug 1290878] New: macros.fonts uses %define instead of %global
by Red Hat Bugzilla 08 Aug '17

08 Aug '17

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

2 9

[Bug 1284237] New: [kn] Change the default Kannada font to Noto from Lohit-Kannada
by Red Hat Bugzilla 08 Aug '17

08 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284237 Bug ID: 1284237 Summary: [kn] Change the default Kannada font to Noto from Lohit-Kannada Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: fonts-indic Assignee: extras-orphan(a)fedoraproject.org Reporter: prasad.mvs(a)gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: extras-orphan(a)fedoraproject.org, fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Description of problem: Aesthetically the Noto fonts are way better than Lohit-Kannada. Change the default system font for Kannada to Noto. Actual results: The default fonts of the current fedora releases are Lohit-Kannada Expected results: Noto should be made the default font. Additional info: To see a comparison between these two fonts, please follow below steps: 1.Make sure that you have Noto font 2.Open the UTRRS page : http://utrrs-testing.rhcloud.com/language/kn 3.Enter "Noto Sans Kannada" and click on Change Font button. 4.Compare the References (Lohit-Kannada) with those of rendered Characters (Noto Sans) for Code points, GPOS and GSUB. -- 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=BFpLTzr5z3&a=cc_unsubscribe

2 9

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Older →

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts-bugs March 2017