fonts-bugs October 2022

fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org

2 participants
77 discussions

[Bug 2129619] Certain vowel symbols overlap with adjacent letter when displaying Sinhala on Fedora 37
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 04 Oct '22

04 Oct '22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129619 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Fixed In Version|google-noto-fonts-20201206^ |google-noto-fonts-20201206^ |1.git0c78c8329-5.fc38 |1.git0c78c8329-5.fc38 | |google-noto-fonts-20201206^ | |1.git0c78c8329-5.fc37 Last Closed|2022-09-30 12:25:50 |2022-10-04 15:12:09 --- Comment #58 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- FEDORA-2022-8638441fd2 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129619

1 0

[Bug 1822847] Review Request: vl-gothic-fonts - Japanese TrueType fonts
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 04 Oct '22

04 Oct '22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847 --- Comment #15 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org> --- Checking logs. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/vl-gothic-fonts/1822847-vl-gothic- fonts/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 8 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. fonts: [!]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package. Note: Cannot find repo-font-audit, install fontpackages-tools package to make a comprehensive font review. See: url: undefined [!]: Run ttname on all fonts in package. Note: Cannot find ttname command, install ttname package to make a comprehensive font review. See: url: undefined Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 3.1 starting (python version = 3.10.7, NVR = mock-3.1-1.fc36)... Start(bootstrap): init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish(bootstrap): init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins INFO: Signal handler active Start: run Start(bootstrap): chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata Finish(bootstrap): cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 3.1 INFO: Mock Version: 3.1 Finish(bootstrap): chroot init Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled package manager cache Start: cleaning package manager metadata Finish: cleaning package manager metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 3.1 INFO: Mock Version: 3.1 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /builddir/vl-gothic-fonts-all-20220612-2.fc38.noarch.rpm /builddir/vl-pgothic-fonts-20220612-2.fc38.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 1b9f3b2d3c7d41908aadfa9f23fb5175 -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --capability=cap_ipc_lock --bind=/tmp/mock-resolv.o1bpkcoc:/etc/resolv.conf --console=pipe --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/installation-homedir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin --setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007" --setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$ --setenv=LANG=C.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C.UTF-8 --resolv-conf=off /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 38 --setopt=deltarpm=False --allowerasing --disableplugin=local --disableplugin=spacewalk --disableplugin=versionlock install /builddir/vl-gothic-fonts-all-20220612-2.fc38.noarch.rpm /builddir/vl-pgothic-fonts-20220612-2.fc38.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://mirrors.gigenet.com/OSDN/vlgothic/77450/VLGothic-20220612.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c201dd3fa73492a2551a339fe235608d3be771237fd5868a526f1b3eb3164d93 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c201dd3fa73492a2551a339fe235608d3be771237fd5868a526f1b3eb3164d93 Requires -------- vl-pgothic-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(vl-pgothic-fonts) fontpackages-filesystem vl-gothic-fonts-all (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): vl-gothic-fonts vl-pgothic-fonts Provides -------- vl-pgothic-fonts: config(vl-pgothic-fonts) font(vlpgothic) font(vlpゴシック) metainfo() metainfo(org.fedoraproject.vl-pgothic-fonts.metainfo.xml) vl-pgothic-fonts vlgothic-p-fonts vl-gothic-fonts-all: vl-gothic-fonts-all Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1822847 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: fonts, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, R, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, Python, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847

1 0

[Bug 2129399] Postscript standard symbol font is not looked up correctly
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 04 Oct '22

04 Oct '22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129399 --- Comment #25 from Michael J Gruber <mjg(a)fedoraproject.org> --- Yes, this is about looking up the font, or the fontconfig coming with some fonts. I'm still wondering though how the others (mupdf, firefox etc.) look up the font to get a different answer. Do they go through fontconfig but filter the results differently? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129399

1 0

[Bug 1822847] Review Request: vl-gothic-fonts - Japanese TrueType fonts
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 04 Oct '22

04 Oct '22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847 --- Comment #14 from Akira TAGOH <tagoh(a)redhat.com> --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #13) > c) Consider naming the metapackage vl-gothic-fonts-all > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/FontsPolicy/ > #_assembling_different_family_font_packages_font_metapackages I don't get it. what are you proposing? > d) Example multipackage spec files: > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/khmer-os-fonts/blob/rawhide/f/khmer-os- > fonts.spec > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/culmus-fonts/blob/rawhide/f/culmus-fonts. > spec > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/julietaula-montserrat-fonts/blob/rawhide/ > f/julietaula-montserrat-fonts.spec same. > e) Without the metapackage, there are no installation errors. With the > metapackage, there is an installation > error because the dependencies of the metapackage cannot be found. What's the real error? it works for me though. please add the full logs if you found any issues. > e) Possible updates to spec file (probably still want to include > metapackage): > %global fontpkgname1 %{foundry}-gothic-regular-fonts Why did you add "regular" in the package name? it is a style. not a part of the family name. it is not a case for vl-gothic-fonts, but, if a font has non-regular style fonts such as italic, are you going to sub-package it separately? No, the intention here is to get same families installed together and provide all variants in one package for better experience. that isn't what our packaging guidelines says. Only updated source URL. Spec URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vl-gothic-fonts/vl-gothic-fonts.spec SRPM URL: https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/reviews/vl-gothic-fonts/vl-gothic-fonts-2022… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822847

1 0

[Bug 2129399] Postscript standard symbol font is not looked up correctly
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 04 Oct '22

04 Oct '22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129399 --- Comment #24 from Akira TAGOH <tagoh(a)redhat.com> --- Not exactly. "Symbol" isn't a sort of generic alias family name such as sans-serif. fontconfig just tries to find out a best font against the request where may contains "Symbol" in family name. that is almost equivarent to find out "Cantarell" as a desktop font in GNOME. If not, trying to pick something up by other conditions then. In that sense, that could be said that we are *just* missing a "Symbol" font. This isn't a sort of bug. If we are going to deal with "Symbol" without any special handling, thus, we just need to add a substitute config to the proper font package which has enough coverage or metrics compatible for "Symbol". To be convenient, we could add it into fontconfig but it won't fix any issues without real fonts. so we should find out any candidate font packages for that instead of doing something in fontconfig. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129399

1 0

[Bug 2129399] Postscript standard symbol font is not looked up correctly
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 03 Oct '22

03 Oct '22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129399 Marek Kašík <mkasik(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ajax(a)redhat.com, | |fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproj | |ect.org, | |i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproje | |ct.org, pnemade(a)redhat.com, | |tagoh(a)redhat.com Component|poppler |fontconfig Assignee|mkasik(a)redhat.com |tagoh(a)redhat.com --- Comment #23 from Marek Kašík <mkasik(a)redhat.com> --- I think that this is an issue in fontconfig. Poppler asks it for "Symbol" font (via equivalent of "fc-match Symbol:lang=xx") and it returns the "Noto Sans" on second place but it does not have the coverage for math symbols which should be in "Symbol" font. For example the third place ("DejaVu Sans") is much better candidate. Poppler rejects the first candidate as it is a "t1" font ("Standard Symbols PS"). I have to admit that poppler does not set "symbol" to "true" when generating the FcPattern but it does not change the result. It does not seem that poppler's upstream would introduce a special handling of "Symbol" font when querying fonts - https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/poppler/poppler/-/issues/1253 and https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/poppler/poppler/-/issues/926. I'm reassigning this bug to fontconfig. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129399

1 0

[Bug 2129619] Certain vowel symbols overlap with adjacent letter when displaying Sinhala on Fedora 37
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 03 Oct '22

03 Oct '22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129619 František Zatloukal <fzatlouk(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fzatlouk(a)redhat.com Whiteboard| |AcceptedFreezeException --- Comment #57 from František Zatloukal <fzatlouk(a)redhat.com> --- Discussed in ticket: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/928 The decision to classify this bug as an AcceptedFreezeException was made. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129619

1 0

[Bug 2131432] New: fonttools-4.37.4 is available
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 03 Oct '22

03 Oct '22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2131432 Bug ID: 2131432 Summary: fonttools-4.37.4 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: fonttools Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: pnemade(a)redhat.com Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, pnemade(a)redhat.com, sshedmak(a)redhat.com, tagoh(a)redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Releases retrieved: 4.37.4 Upstream release that is considered latest: 4.37.4 Current version/release in rawhide: 4.37.3-1.fc38 URL: https://github.com/fonttools/fonttools/ 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Upstream_Release_M… 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/7388/ To change the monitoring settings for the project, please visit: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fonttools -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2131432

1 4

[Bug 2129619] Certain vowel symbols overlap with adjacent letter when displaying Sinhala on Fedora 37
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 01 Oct '22

01 Oct '22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129619 --- Comment #56 from Lohan G <lohang(a)riseup.net> --- At last, I was able to install the correct update and test it. The rendering issue has been resolved. Thanks very much for fixing it! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129619

1 0

[Bug 2129619] Certain vowel symbols overlap with adjacent letter when displaying Sinhala on Fedora 37
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 01 Oct '22

01 Oct '22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129619 --- Comment #55 from Lohan G <lohang(a)riseup.net> --- (In reply to Parag Nemade from comment #54) > That clearly mean you have not got yet the new update installed. I request > you to please wait 1 more day by which all Fedora mirror will get this > update and your system dnf will see this package available for update. > The new updated rpm is > google-noto-sans-sinhala-vf-fonts-20201206^1.git0c78c8329-5.fc37.noarch Oh, you are right. I am extremely sorry about this. I misunderstood the availability of the update by looking at the note "This update has been pushed to testing." Will wait and verify carefully before testing and reporting back next time. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129619

1 0

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts-bugs October 2022