https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619530
--- Comment #30 from George Machitidze <giomac(a)gmail.com> ---
+ Georgian glyphs in Google Noto are terrible and inadequately large when
compared to other fonts containing Georgian glyphs and VERY large compared to
glyphs written in Latin with the same Google Noto. Probably, that's the reason
why nobody uses it here :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619530
--- Comment #29 from George Machitidze <giomac(a)gmail.com> ---
Not that we just don't use them, WE DON'T HAVE THEM, therefore, we don't have
mixed casing at all. There are no capital letters.
"Mtavruli" is just a representation, it's not a case or capitalization.
You can read it in attached document "Mtavruli-style letters are never used as
“capitals”; a word is always entirely presented in mtavruli or not"
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619530
--- Comment #28 from Alan <alan.g12r(a)outlook.com> ---
It's a good idea to switched to Google Noto as a default font for Georgian, or
use it as an alternative to BPG.
P.S. We use Mtavruli characters almost everywhere and we definitely need them.
You can see a lot of examples at the end of this document:
https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2016/16034-n4707-georgian.pdf
See also this Q&A:
https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2017/17045-georgian-resp.pdf
In modern Georgian, Mtavruli is not used for mixed/title casing, only with the
All Caps function, but it does NOT mean, that we don't have uppercase or they
are not capital letters.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619530
--- Comment #27 from George Machitidze <giomac(a)gmail.com> ---
direct answer to this issue is to have all characters in lowercase, because
this is how Georgian language works - WE DON"T HAVE UPPERCASE characters, don't
use them.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619530
George Machitidze <giomac(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |giomac(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #26 from George Machitidze <giomac(a)gmail.com> ---
Hello,
One thing I can tell - we don't have a case in Georgian alphabet, some fonts
include uppercase characters, some don't, but they are not really uppercase,
they're just another set of glyphs or fonts inserted in the collection. They
never should be mixed - we don't do that.
Georgian devs are not clueless about licensing, we've been in quite long strict
discussions about it since 2004. I have direct contact with all original font
developers (Including mentioned BPG), so, I can check anything we need. Dejavu
family includes fonts originally created by BPG, and Georgian LUG members were
quite careful when we've asked him to include his works and release them as GPL
licensed so we could include it in Linux distributions. Same applies to the
keyboard layouts - that was done at the same time...
What exactly is the case? How can I help?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619530
--- Comment #25 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Nicolas Mailhot from comment #24)
> No, because bpg-dejavu-sans-fonts is not a complete fork of dejavu, it is
> missing other parts.
>
> Also, bpg-dejavu-sans-fonts is quite shaky legal-wise, the Georgian dev is
> completely clueless about licensing, I’m not sure its GPL use is compatible
> with the licensing in the other parts of dejavu, and even if it is, there
> are good reason we are not using the GPL for font files (it would make
> documents, that embed font parts, such as ODF or PDF, GPL, which is
> definitely not what our users need).
Sounds like Noto Georgian may be a better bet then.
Not to mention the BPG family names typos.
> We really need someone to revive the upstream dejavu project and restart
> merging fixes and enhancements, since the original authors lost the drive.
That would be great indeed.
> (Can’t really blame them when downstreams like Fedora Workstation removed
> DejaVu as default font just because it was steady and “boring”).
That is not completely accurate, Dejavu is still default, just not for Gnome UI
chrome.
(And that was encouraged by Gnome, not particularly Fedora Workstation.)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837997
Bug ID: 1837997
Summary: Unable to install bitmap-fonts package
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: bitmap-fonts
Assignee: psatpute(a)redhat.com
Reporter: pnemade(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
petersen(a)redhat.com, pnemade(a)redhat.com,
psatpute(a)redhat.com, pwu(a)redhat.com
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Description of problem:
Problem 1: package bitmap-lucida-typewriter-fonts-0.3-33.fc32.noarch conflicts
with bitmap-lucida-typewriter-opentype-fonts provided by
bitmap-lucida-typewriter-opentype-fonts-0.3-33.fc32.noarch
- package bitmap-lucida-typewriter-opentype-fonts-0.3-33.fc32.noarch
conflicts with bitmap-lucida-typewriter-fonts provided by
bitmap-lucida-typewriter-fonts-0.3-33.fc32.noarch
- cannot install the best candidate for the job
- conflicting requests
Problem 2: package bitmap-fixed-fonts-0.3-33.fc32.noarch conflicts with
bitmap-fixed-opentype-fonts provided by
bitmap-fixed-opentype-fonts-0.3-33.fc32.noarch
- package bitmap-fixed-opentype-fonts-0.3-33.fc32.noarch conflicts with
bitmap-fixed-fonts provided by bitmap-fixed-fonts-0.3-33.fc32.noarch
- cannot install the best candidate for the job
- conflicting requests
Problem 3: package bitmap-fangsongti-fonts-0.3-33.fc32.noarch conflicts with
bitmap-fangsongti-opentype-fonts provided by
bitmap-fangsongti-opentype-fonts-0.3-33.fc32.noarch
- package bitmap-fangsongti-opentype-fonts-0.3-33.fc32.noarch conflicts with
bitmap-fangsongti-fonts provided by bitmap-fangsongti-fonts-0.3-33.fc32.noarch
- cannot install the best candidate for the job
- conflicting requests
Problem 4: package bitmap-console-fonts-0.3-33.fc32.noarch conflicts with
bitmap-console-opentype-fonts provided by
bitmap-console-opentype-fonts-0.3-33.fc32.noarch
- package bitmap-console-opentype-fonts-0.3-33.fc32.noarch conflicts with
bitmap-console-fonts provided by bitmap-console-fonts-0.3-33.fc32.noarch
- cannot install the best candidate for the job
- conflicting requests
Problem 5: package bitmap-fonts-compat-0.3-33.fc32.noarch conflicts with
bitmap-opentype-fonts-compat provided by
bitmap-opentype-fonts-compat-0.3-33.fc32.noarch
- package bitmap-opentype-fonts-compat-0.3-33.fc32.noarch conflicts with
bitmap-fonts-compat provided by bitmap-fonts-compat-0.3-33.fc32.noarch
- cannot install the best candidate for the job
- conflicting requests
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
bitmap-fonts-0.3-33.fc32
How reproducible:
always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. unable to install this font packages
2.
3.
Actual results:
unable to install this font package
Expected results:
Should be able to install this font package
Additional info:
This issue looks related to
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bitmap-fonts/pull-request/2
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1837998
Bug ID: 1837998
Summary: Unable to install ucs-miscfixed-fonts package
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: ucs-miscfixed-fonts
Assignee: psatpute(a)redhat.com
Reporter: pnemade(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
petersen(a)redhat.com, psatpute(a)redhat.com,
pwu(a)redhat.com
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Description of problem:
Problem: package ucs-miscfixed-fonts-0.3-22.fc32.noarch conflicts with
ucs-miscfixed-opentype-fonts provided by
ucs-miscfixed-opentype-fonts-0.3-22.fc32.noarch
- package ucs-miscfixed-opentype-fonts-0.3-22.fc32.noarch conflicts with
ucs-miscfixed-fonts provided by ucs-miscfixed-fonts-0.3-22.fc32.noarch
- cannot install the best candidate for the job
- conflicting requests
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
ucs-miscfixed-fonts-0.3-22.fc32
How reproducible:
always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Try to install this package
2.
3.
Actual results:
unable to install this font package
Expected results:
Should be able to install this font package
Additional info:
This issue looks related to
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ucs-miscfixed-fonts/pull-request/1
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1823637
Hans Ulrich Niedermann <rhbugs(a)n-dimensional.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachment|0 |1
#1685173 is| |
obsolete| |
--- Comment #16 from Hans Ulrich Niedermann <rhbugs(a)n-dimensional.de> ---
Created attachment 1690664
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1690664&action=edit
OP gnome-terminal font selection dialog only with empty rectangles
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1619530
--- Comment #24 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> ---
No, because bpg-dejavu-sans-fonts is not a complete fork of dejavu, it is
missing other parts.
Also, bpg-dejavu-sans-fonts is quite shaky legal-wise, the Georgian dev is
completely clueless about licensing, I’m not sure its GPL use is compatible
with the licensing in the other parts of dejavu, and even if it is, there are
good reason we are not using the GPL for font files (it would make documents,
that embed font parts, such as ODF or PDF, GPL, which is definitely not what
our users need).
We really need someone to revive the upstream dejavu project and restart
merging fixes and enhancements, since the original authors lost the drive.
(Can’t really blame them when downstreams like Fedora Workstation removed
DejaVu as default font just because it was steady and “boring”).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.