fonts-bugs September 2017

fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org

2 participants
93 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 1487123] Review Request: eosrei-emojione-fonts - A color emoji font
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 29 Sep '17

29 Sep '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487123 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2017-09-30 02:27:30 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- eosrei-emojione-fonts-1.0-5.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1496466] URW fonts not available in LibreOffice
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 28 Sep '17

28 Sep '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496466 Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(dkaspar(a)redhat.co | |m) --- Comment #6 from Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos(a)gmail.com> --- (In reply to Nicolas Mailhot from comment #5) > I hate when people ship legacy font formats "just because they may be useful > for someone", OpenType won a long time ago, OpenType contains stuff with is > required for state of the art text rendering, non-OpenType is a dead end, > all modern apps work fine with OpenType and need nothing else. I'm with you all the way. @Dee'Kej: David, I saw that the source package for urw-base35-fonts contains afm, otf, t1 and ttf formats. Is there a reason why you left OpenType and TrueType out? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1496466] URW fonts not available in LibreOffice
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 28 Sep '17

28 Sep '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496466 --- Comment #5 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> --- (In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #4) > (In reply to Nicolas Mailhot from comment #3) > > I haven't checked texlive lately but unless the fonts are packaged using the > > Fedora packaging template they won't be available in fontconfig for non-tex > > apps such as libreoffice. > > There are no fontconfig.conf (nor metainfo.xml) files and the fonts are > packaged in a number of different formats. > Interestingly, I discovered the texlive-tex-gyre-math package on my system, > which contains nothing but the fonts in otf format plus their license and > these fonts are available in LibreOffice. All the packaging template does is make sure the fonts are in a location fontconfig looks at, aliasing rules are ok, package naming and split is consistent with other Fedora font packages, and fontconfig indexes are refreshed at install time so yes one can do the same as the template piecemeal (though it is much simpler to apply the template to make sure nothing was forgotten as is usually the case). If libreoffice sees the fonts that confirms newer libreoffice expects OpenType only, ie ttf or otf files (which is rather sane in 2017, one can only workaround old legacy incomplete formats so long). So there are two good options: make sure TEX Gyre fonts are well packaged in Fedora, or start a separate project to convert URW fonts to OpenType under GS licensing (and drop the legacy PS1 files) And there is one bad option: convince libreoffice to accept PS1 fonts a bit longer, with the associated bugs and limitations, that no one will know to attribute to the legacy format, that no one will ever fix, and things will continue to slowly rot. I hate when people ship legacy font formats "just because they may be useful for someone", OpenType won a long time ago, OpenType contains stuff with is required for state of the art text rendering, non-OpenType is a dead end, all modern apps work fine with OpenType and need nothing else. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1496466] URW fonts not available in LibreOffice
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 28 Sep '17

28 Sep '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496466 --- Comment #4 from Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos(a)gmail.com> --- (In reply to Nicolas Mailhot from comment #3) > I haven't checked texlive lately but unless the fonts are packaged using the > Fedora packaging template they won't be available in fontconfig for non-tex > apps such as libreoffice. There are no fontconfig.conf (nor metainfo.xml) files and the fonts are packaged in a number of different formats. Interestingly, I discovered the texlive-tex-gyre-math package on my system, which contains nothing but the fonts in otf format plus their license and these fonts are available in LibreOffice. > It does not matter if they are packaged as texlive subpackages or as > independent projects as long as the template is applied. Also, whoever > packages them needs to ship some fontconfig files that aliases the various > past names of the fonts to the new one for backwards compat. Again there are > templates to do so in fontpackages-devel. I seem to have such rules in 30-metric-aliases.conf as well as in the fontconfig files from David's urw-base35 fonts. > Reading > http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/index_html#Licensing > > they got URW to publish the fonts under their own pet license to avoid > dealing with Ghostscript licensing they didn't understood. So as long as > they rebased to that release with no ghostscript import they are ok > legal-wise (do check with spot if you feel like it, though I'm pretty sure > he'd have blocked them from TexLive during its TEX audits if there was still > a problem). > > That sucks if GS added fixes over URW material, but that's how free software > works when projects disagree on licensing. This was on 2016-11-25: "We are on our way to the reconciling both licenses. It takes time, though..." -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1496466] URW fonts not available in LibreOffice
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 28 Sep '17

28 Sep '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496466 --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> --- I haven't checked texlive lately but unless the fonts are packaged using the Fedora packaging template they won't be available in fontconfig for non-tex apps such as libreoffice. It does not matter if they are packaged as texlive subpackages or as independent projects as long as the template is applied. Also, whoever packages them needs to ship some fontconfig files that aliases the various past names of the fonts to the new one for backwards compat. Again there are templates to do so in fontpackages-devel. Reading http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/index_html#Licensing they got URW to publish the fonts under their own pet license to avoid dealing with Ghostscript licensing they didn't understood. So as long as they rebased to that release with no ghostscript import they are ok legal-wise (do check with spot if you feel like it, though I'm pretty sure he'd have blocked them from TexLive during its TEX audits if there was still a problem). That sucks if GS added fixes over URW material, but that's how free software works when projects disagree on licensing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1496466] URW fonts not available in LibreOffice
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 28 Sep '17

28 Sep '17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496466 --- Comment #2 from Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos(a)gmail.com> --- (In reply to Nicolas Mailhot from comment #1) > Someone should really package tex gyre in Fedora, now that the legal issues > have been solved (IIRC). That's basically the same fonts in an opentype > container. > > http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre Is that different from texlive-tex-gyre that we already have? I just remembered filing #1394198 and I checked the messages we had exchanged with the developers. Judging by the "News" section of their website, we are still waiting for the Ghostscript and Tex Gyre teams to agree on a license. -- 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 →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts-bugs September 2017