[Bug 1909517] New: EPEL 8 adobe-source-sans-pro-fonts
by bugzilla＠redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1909517
Bug ID: 1909517
Summary: EPEL 8 adobe-source-sans-pro-fonts
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel8
Status: NEW
Component: adobe-source-sans-pro-fonts
Assignee: pikachu.2014(a)gmail.com
Reporter: mavit(a)mavit.org.uk
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: alexis.lameire(a)gmail.com,
fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
pikachu.2014(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Could adobe-source-sans-pro-fonts be built for EPEL 8, please?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
3 years, 3 months
[Bug 1902881] New: Fallback font in fontconfig 2.13.93 is
Montserrat, previously was DejaVu
by bugzilla＠redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902881
Bug ID: 1902881
Summary: Fallback font in fontconfig 2.13.93 is Montserrat,
previously was DejaVu
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: fontconfig
Severity: medium
Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com
Reporter: awilliam(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: ajax(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, mclasen(a)redhat.com,
pnemade(a)redhat.com, rhughes(a)redhat.com,
rstrode(a)redhat.com, sandmann(a)redhat.com,
tagoh(a)redhat.com
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
I'm still trying to figure out exactly what's going on here, but with
fontconfig-2.13.92-12.fc33 , if you do "fc-match ashjopasdjhao" - just any
random non-existent string - you get "DejaVuSans.ttf: "DejaVu Sans" "Regular"".
If you do the same on fontconfig-2.13.93-1.fc34, you get
"Montserrat-Regular.otf: "Montserrat" "Regular"".
I *think* this is why KDE window titles look different with 2.13.93 vs. 2.13.92
- this is breaking some KDE tests in openQA. KDE window titles are set to use
"Noto Sans", but that font is not actually installed by default. So I think
they wind up just falling back.
There's another odd discrepancy I noted: on 2.13.92, "fc-match sans-serif"
gives DejaVu Sans Regular, while on 2.13.93 it gives DejaVu Sans Book. I'm not
sure whether that's related or what's causing it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
3 years, 4 months
[Bug 1902413] New: couldn't upgrade fontconfig from 2.13.92-12.fc33
to 2.13.93-1.fc34 because x86_64 conflicted with i686
by bugzilla＠redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902413
Bug ID: 1902413
Summary: couldn't upgrade fontconfig from 2.13.92-12.fc33 to
2.13.93-1.fc34 because x86_64 conflicted with i686
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: fontconfig
Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com
Reporter: mikhail.v.gavrilov(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: ajax(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, mclasen(a)redhat.com,
pnemade(a)redhat.com, rhughes(a)redhat.com,
rstrode(a)redhat.com, sandmann(a)redhat.com,
tagoh(a)redhat.com
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Description of problem:
couldn't upgrade fontconfig from 2.13.92-12.fc33 to 2.13.93-1.fc34 because
x86_64 conflicted with i686, but i686 version is needed for steam and wine
# rpm -qa | grep fontconfig
fontconfig-2.13.92-12.fc33.x86_64
fontconfig-2.13.92-12.fc33.i686
# dnf upgrade fontconfig
Last metadata expiration check: 0:01:07 ago on Sat 28 Nov 2020 09:32:37 PM +05.
Dependencies resolved.
===============================================================================
Package Architecture Version Repository Size
===============================================================================
Upgrading:
fontconfig i686 2.13.93-1.fc34 rawhide 285 k
fontconfig x86_64 2.13.93-1.fc34 rawhide 274 k
Transaction Summary
===============================================================================
Upgrade 2 Packages
Total size: 559 k
Is this ok [y/N]: y
Downloading Packages:
[SKIPPED] fontconfig-2.13.93-1.fc34.i686.rpm: Already downloaded
[SKIPPED] fontconfig-2.13.93-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm: Already downloaded
Running transaction check
Transaction check succeeded.
Running transaction test
The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful
transaction.
You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'.
Error: Transaction test error:
file /usr/share/doc/fontconfig/fontconfig-user.txt conflicts between
attempted installs of fontconfig-2.13.93-1.fc34.i686 and
fontconfig-2.13.93-1.fc34.x86_64
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
3 years, 4 months
[Bug 1902365] New: fontconfig-2.13.93 is available
by bugzilla＠redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1902365
Bug ID: 1902365
Summary: fontconfig-2.13.93 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: fontconfig
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com
Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: ajax(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, mclasen(a)redhat.com,
pnemade(a)redhat.com, rhughes(a)redhat.com,
rstrode(a)redhat.com, sandmann(a)redhat.com,
tagoh(a)redhat.com
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Latest upstream release: 2.13.93
Current version/release in rawhide: 2.13.92-12.fc33
URL: https://www.fontconfig.org/
Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/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/827/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
3 years, 4 months