July 2019 - fonts-bugs - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 1728307] Review Request: foundation-icons-fonts - Icons web font

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728307 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> --- LGTM, package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1728307] Review Request: foundation-icons-fonts - Icons web font

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728307 --- Comment #7 from Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org> --- Thanks for the explanations Nicolas. Here's an updated version : Spec URL: https://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SPECS/foundation-icons-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://www.bachelot.org/fedora/SRPMS/foundation-icons-fonts-3.0-2.fc31.s... Changelog: * Wed Jul 17 2019 Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org> - 3.0-2 - Package TTF font only and add patch to fix CSS accordingly. - Update descriptions and summaries. - Drop commented out appstream support. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1728307] Review Request: foundation-icons-fonts - Icons web font

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728307 --- Comment #6 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> --- BTW, if you're curious the project files are here https://pagure.io/fork/nim/packaging-committee/commits/fonts-rpm-macros https://pagure.io/fork/nim/fonts-rpm-macros https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/fonts-rpm-macros/builds/ https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/fonts-rpm-macros-noreg/builds/ There are large stretches of no activity in git, when I priorised Go SIG work over Fonts SIG work, even though both use the same macro routines and design -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1728307] Review Request: foundation-icons-fonts - Icons web font

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728307 --- Comment #5 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> --- It is not a stupid question, the font situation is a mess because everyone thinks it is simple, no one makes an effort to do things cleanly, and as a result fixing things falls on packagers. Yes, you can just remove all the other formats, and keep only the opentype file (just check in a browser in case you made a typo somewhere) As far as I know, caniuse is the reference to check if a feature is supported in browsers. It's a thankless inventory task no one else wants to do. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1728307] Review Request: foundation-icons-fonts - Icons web font

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728307 --- Comment #4 from Xavier Bachelot <xavier(a)bachelot.org> --- Thanks for the review Robert-André. And thanks for the comments Nicolas. As this is my very first font package and I know next to nothing about fonts in general, please bear with me for any stupid question :-) So, practically speaking, I should only package the ttf font and remove all of the others (eot, woff and svg). And then I should patch the css file to remove references to eot, woff and svg. The css currently contains this : """ @font-face { font-family: "foundation-icons"; src: url("foundation-icons.eot"); src: url("foundation-icons.eot?#iefix") format("embedded-opentype"), url("foundation-icons.woff") format("woff"), url("foundation-icons.ttf") format("truetype"), url("foundation-icons.svg#fontcustom") format("svg"); font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; } """ It should be rewritten to : """ @font-face { font-family: "foundation-icons"; src: url("foundation-icons.ttf") format("truetype"); font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; } """ Is that correct ? Then, as I'm packaging this font to unbundle it from another software that just passed review (sympa mailing list manager, RHBZ#17283000), I shall convince upstream to only keep the ttf version of the font and assure them this will not break the WUI for any browser. Do you have any link to support this claim ? Or shall https://caniuse.com/#feat=ttf be enough ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1427550] [ta_IN] Adding additional Glyphs in Tamil

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1427550 --- Comment #14 from Seshadri N <nsesha92(a)yahoo.co.in> --- On second thoughts, it is better to have a separate Vedic Tamil font, instead of modifying / adding Vedic signs existing Lohit Tamil. As Vedic letters require extra ascent and descent space. Since I have not modified ascent and descent parameters, ( I don't know the logic on what / how to modify, what values to choose ..), I guess some of the Vedic signs are intersecting / overlapping. Hope V Vijay will take care of this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 826026] [ta_IN] [Waiting for Unicode] Glyph of 0BF6 TAMIL DEBIT SIGN ௶ in Lohit Tamil (and Classical) fonts to be corrected

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826026 --- Comment #6 from vishalvvr <vishalvijayraghavan(a)gmail.com> --- Hi Shriramana, My understanding about this bug is, current 0BF6 TAMIL DEBIT SIGN ௶ in Lohit Tamil fonts is incorrect and it should render as per the given attachment. Adding this screenshot[1] which shows the current version of TAMIL DEBIT SIGN ௶ in Lohit Tamil vs then shape enhancement suggested. Correct me if i am getting this wrong. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1590613 Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 826026] [ta_IN] [Waiting for Unicode] Glyph of 0BF6 TAMIL DEBIT SIGN ௶ in Lohit Tamil (and Classical) fonts to be corrected

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826026 vishalvvr <vishalvijayraghavan(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |vishalvijayraghavan(a)gmail.c | |om --- Comment #5 from vishalvvr <vishalvijayraghavan(a)gmail.com> --- Created attachment 1590613 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1590613&action=edit lohit-tamil-fonts vs proposed shape -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1728307] Review Request: foundation-icons-fonts - Icons web font

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728307 --- Comment #3 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> --- (most web font formats are legact garbage, and woff is sequivalent to opentype, except it's not supported in apps, so it's a form of drm for proprietary fonts. We don't allow those in Fedora, just use opentype everywhere) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1728307] Review Request: foundation-icons-fonts - Icons web font

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1728307 --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> --- BTW, this part seems to have been lost in the adoc convertion of the wiki https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Choosing_the_right_font_format_to_package And, the situation improved since 2009, https://caniuse.com/#feat=ttf So the revised fonts pacakging guidelines I'm finishing up with https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/nim/fonts-rpm-macros/ will just forbid packaging anything except opentype, with console fonts as the only exception (none of the cargo-culted web font formats that have been useless for years and serve as a form of DRM, no PS1 fonts that even LibreOffice refuses to read nowadays, etc) And I need to figure how to rescue ttname that somone added to the guidelines, since it seems to be a casualty of python3 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts-bugs July 2019