fonts-bugs August 2017

fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org

2 participants
94 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 1469712] New: font antialiasing/hinting is not working on Fedora 26
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 10 Nov '17

10 Nov '17

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.

1 10

[Bug 1470509] New: freetype/harfbuzz fc25->fc26 turns to ugly rendering
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 01 Nov '17

01 Nov '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470509 Bug ID: 1470509 Summary: freetype/harfbuzz fc25->fc26 turns to ugly rendering Product: Fedora Version: 26 Component: freetype Severity: medium Assignee: mkasik(a)redhat.com Reporter: pb(a)bieringer.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: While on fc25 I have sharp fonts on a 1600x1200 96 dpi display after upgrade to fc26 the rendering is ugly Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): freetype-2.7.1-9.fc26.x86_64 harfbuzz-1.4.4-1.fc26.x86_64 harfbuzz-icu-1.4.4-1.fc26.x86_64 (from updates-testing) + fc26 original How reproducible: at least on 2 systems Steps to Reproduce: 1. upgrade to fc26 2. login Actual results: bad system font rendering Expected results: same rendering as on fc25 Additional info: # xrdb -q Xft.lcdfilter: lcddefault Xft.antialias: 0 Xft.hinting: 1 Xft.hintstyle: hintslight Xft.rgba: rgb Xft.dpi: 96 Xcursor.theme: default Xcursor.size: 21 Xcursor.theme_core: 1 after downgrade with fc25 packages: freetype-2.6.5-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm harfbuzz-1.3.2-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm harfbuzz-icu-1.3.2-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm after reboot returns to previous and well rendering behavior. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 11

[Bug 1485076] New: ile /usr/include/pango-1.0/pango/ pango-enum-types.h conflicts between attempted installs of pango-devel-1.40.11-1.fc26.i686 and pang o-devel-1.40.11-1.fc26.x86_64
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 03 Sep '17

03 Sep '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485076 Bug ID: 1485076 Summary: ile /usr/include/pango-1.0/pango/pango-enum-types.h conflicts between attempted installs of pango-devel-1.40.11-1.fc26.i686 and pang o-devel-1.40.11-1.fc26.x86_64 Product: Fedora Version: 26 Component: pango Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com Reporter: htl10(a)users.sourceforge.net QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, tagoh(a)redhat.com Description of problem: # rpm -q pango-devel pango-devel-1.40.9-1.fc26.i686 pango-devel-1.40.9-1.fc26.x86_64 # dnf upgrade --refresh ... Error: Transaction check error: file /usr/include/pango-1.0/pango/pango-enum-types.h conflicts between attempted installs of pango-devel-1.40.11-1.fc26.i686 and pang o-devel-1.40.11-1.fc26.x86_64 Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): pango-devel-1.40.9-1.fc26.i686 pango-devel-1.40.9-1.fc26.x86_64 upgrading to pango-devel-1.40.11-1.fc26.i686 pango-devel-1.40.11-1.fc26.x86_64 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. as above 2. 3. Actual results: conflict Expected results: upgrade successful. Additional info: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 5

[Bug 1260061] New: fallbacks for TmsRmn and Helv
by Red Hat Bugzilla 03 Sep '17

03 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 408497] Include DejaVu fonts
by Bugzilla＠Mozilla 31 Aug '17

31 Aug '17

Do not reply to this email. You can add comments to this bug at https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=408497 Matt Howell [:mhowell] <mhowell(a)mozilla.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mhowell(a)mozilla.com Component|Installer |General --- Comment #10 from Matt Howell [:mhowell] <mhowell(a)mozilla.com> 2017-08-30 10:14:01 PDT --- I have no idea if this bug is still valid, I just know it isn't an installer bug, so all I can really do is move it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------------------------------- Product/Component: Firefox :: General ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1258542] Review Request: hack-fonts - A typeface designed for source code
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 30 Aug '17

30 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1258542 --- Comment #35 from Shawn Starr <shawn.starr(a)rogers.com> --- This is currently blocked from our other dependencies needed for python-fontmake and its sub-dependencies... Upstream is appreciative in our efforts to get things packaged up. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1376476] urw-fonts: new release(20160926) available
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 28 Aug '17

28 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1376476 David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] <dkaspar(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1458840 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1458840 [Bug 1458840] Review Request: urw-base35-fonts - Level 2 Core Font Set for Ghostscript -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1445925] [abrt] gimp: pango_ot_info_list_scripts(): gimp-2.8 killed by SIGSEGV
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 23 Aug '17

23 Aug '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1445925 Eric L. <eklawl01(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(eklawl01(a)gmail.co | |m) | --- Comment #22 from Eric L. <eklawl01(a)gmail.com> --- Every time, yes. "Program terminated with signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault." from the backtrace. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

← 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 August 2017