https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999078
Bug ID: 1999078
Summary: Hinting broken for Bitstream Vera/DejaVu in Epiphany
Product: Fedora
Version: 34
Status: NEW
Component: freetype
Assignee: mkasik(a)redhat.com
Reporter: ossman(a)cendio.se
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,
kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org, mark(a)net-c.com,
mclasen(a)redhat.com, mkasik(a)redhat.com,
rhughes(a)redhat.com, rstrode(a)redhat.com,
sandmann(a)redhat.com
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Created attachment 1819062
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1819062&action=edit
Screenshot with varying sub pixel placement
Description of problem:
After upgrading from Fedora 33 to Fedora 34, there is some extremely odd
hinting bug in Epiphany. The same glyph appears with different amount of
hinting in the same line of text, causing a very odd and blurry appearance.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
freetype-2.10.4-3.fc34.x86_64
bitstream-vera-sans-fonts-1.10-41.fc33.noarch
dejavu-sans-fonts-2.37-16.fc34.noarch
epiphany-40.3-1.fc34.x86_64
webkit2gtk3-2.32.3-1.fc34.x86_64
pango-1.48.9-2.fc34.x86_64
How reproducible:
100%
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Configure Epiphany to use Bitstream Vera or DejaVu Sans Book
2. Configure full hinting
Actual results:
Fully hinted, consistent glyphs.
Expected results:
Some glyphs are fully hinted, some look like they've been offset by a fraction
of a pixel. (See screenshot)
Additional info:
So far I'm only seeing this in Epiphany. I still filed this for freetype since
as far as I know it is freetype that does all glyph layout, hinting and
sub-pixel stuff. Feel free to move as appropriate. So it seems odd that a bug
in Epiphany can screw this up.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833858
Bug ID: 1833858
Summary: Hangul Jamo is seperated and printed respectively
Product: Fedora
Version: 32
Status: NEW
Component: google-droid-fonts
Assignee: nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net
Reporter: hyunwoo.park(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net, oliver(a)redhat.com,
paul(a)frixxon.co.uk, tremble(a)tremble.org.uk
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Created attachment 1687129
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1687129&action=edit
wrong display of Hangul at LibreOffice Writer
Description of problem:
When Hangul is output to the monitor, Chosung, Neutral, and Jongseong are
output separately.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Font file, /usr/share/fonts/google-droid-sans-fonts/DroidSansFallbackFull.ttf,
of google-droid-sans-fonts-20200215-3.fc32.noarch
How reproducible:
If you create a test.html containing "가속도" and open the file in the chrome
browser, the Korean alphabet will be displayed separately.
Or, write "가속도" at LibreOffice Writer and select font as "Droid Sans Fallback".
Steps to Reproduce:
1. write "가속도" at LibreOffece Writer
2. select the text and change font name to "Droid Sans Fallback"
Actual results:
The text is displayed like "가ㅅㅗㄱㄷㅗ".
Expected results:
Text should be "가속도"
Additional info:
https://kldp.org/node/163247
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213602
Bug ID: 2213602
Summary: update to version 7.0
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: paktype-naskh-basic-fonts
Severity: medium
Assignee: extras-orphan(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: petersen(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: extras-orphan(a)fedoraproject.org,
fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
psatpute(a)redhat.com, vishalvijayraghavan(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Currently we have version 6.0 in Fedora.
In April 7.0 was released.
Reproducible: Always
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2213602
Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-sp…
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999864
Bug ID: 1999864
Summary: Cannot find package with font for Coptic although such
a package exists for Fedora 34
Product: Fedora
Version: 34
Status: NEW
Component: fontconfig
Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com
Reporter: mfabian(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
Created attachment 1819530
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1819530&action=edit
Gnome Software unable to find Coptic fonts
Using Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-34-1.2.iso in qemu.
I played with emoji picker and Gnome popped up something requesting more fonts.
I clicked and then Gnome Software said:
“Unable to find the Coptic, Persian, Old (ca. 600-400 B.C.), Ugaritic you were
searching for. Please see _the documentation_ for more information.”
See attached screenshot.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2251384
Bug ID: 2251384
Summary: Wrong Arabic font prioritization in several apps.
(Droid kufi prioritized over noto-sans)
Product: Fedora
Version: 39
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: fontconfig
Severity: low
Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com
Reporter: alawamiaz(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: ajax(a)redhat.com, fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
gnome-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, mclasen(a)redhat.com,
rstrode(a)redhat.com, tagoh(a)redhat.com
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Description of problem:
Few fedora releases ago, Noto-Sans-Arabic was set to be the default. It was
working fine and Arabic text was displayed in all web browsers using this font.
sometime in last few months, every web browser in fedora suddenly started
prioritizing "Druid Kufi" font over noto-sans-arabic. which now looks makes
arabic text looks jarring.
Interestingly, when running from live usb image, noto-sans-arabic is correctly
priotirized and being used to render all arabic web pages, but only for FEW
MINUTES and then suddenly it's switched to druid kufi!, without updating
anything, just running Firefox for few minutes.
It's also reproducible after fresh install, the first 3 minutes of using the
new fedora installation, Firefox and other browsers are displaying noto-sans
then suddenly switch to druid kufi.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
38-39
How reproducible:
Consistently
Steps to Reproduce:
1.Connect to internet
2.Open arabic webpage in firefox (ex, wikipedia)
3.text would be displayed with druid kufi instead of the default
noto-sans-arabic which was chosen to be the default sometime around fedora 36.
Actual results:
Arabic Text displayed with druid kufi font
Expected results:
Arabic text should be displayed using noto-sans-arabic as was the case before.
Additional info:
The font in gnome and top bars is still correctly displayed using
noto-sans-arabic. It's browsers that exhibit the problem.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2251384
Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-sp…
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247028
Bug ID: 2247028
Summary: fonttools fails to build with Python 3.13: error:
implicit declaration of function ‘_PyLong_Copy’
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: fonttools
Assignee: pnemade(a)redhat.com
Reporter: ksurma(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, ksurma(a)redhat.com,
mhroncok(a)redhat.com, pnemade(a)redhat.com,
tagoh(a)redhat.com
Blocks: 2244836 (PYTHON3.13)
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
fonttools fails to build with Python 3.13.0a1.
This report is automated and not very verbose, but we'll try to get back here
with details.
Lib/fontTools/qu2cu/qu2cu.c: In function ‘__Pyx_PyLong_AbsNeg’:
Lib/fontTools/qu2cu/qu2cu.c:10421:26: error: implicit declaration of function
‘_PyLong_Copy’ [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
10421 | PyObject *copy = _PyLong_Copy((PyLongObject*)n);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~
https://docs.python.org/3.13/whatsnew/3.13.html
For the build logs, see:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/@python/python3.13/fedora-r…
For all our attempts to build fonttools with Python 3.13, see:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/python/python3.13/package/fonttoo…
Testing and mass rebuild of packages is happening in copr.
You can follow these instructions to test locally in mock if your package
builds with Python 3.13:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/python/python3.13/
Let us know here if you have any questions.
Python 3.13 is planned to be included in Fedora 41.
To make that update smoother, we're building Fedora packages with all
pre-releases of Python 3.13.
A build failure prevents us from testing all dependent packages (transitive
[Build]Requires),
so if this package is required a lot, it's important for us to get it fixed
soon.
We'd appreciate help from the people who know this package best,
but if you don't want to work on this now, let us know so we can try to work
around it on our side.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244836
[Bug 2244836] Python 3.13
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247028
Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-sp…
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245798
Bug ID: 2245798
Summary: fontforge fails to build with Python 3.13: error:
implicit declaration of function `Py_SetProgramName`
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: fontforge
Assignee: kevin(a)scrye.com
Reporter: ksurma(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, kevin(a)scrye.com,
ksurma(a)redhat.com, mhroncok(a)redhat.com,
pnemade(a)redhat.com
Blocks: 2231791 (F40FTBFS,RAWHIDEFTBFS), 2244836 (PYTHON3.13)
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
fontforge fails to build with Python 3.13.0a1.
/builddir/build/BUILD/fontforge-20230101/fontforge/python.c:19636:5: error:
implicit declaration of function ‘Py_SetProgramName’; did you mean
‘Py_GetProgramName’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
19636 | Py_SetProgramName(saved_progname);
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| Py_GetProgramName
Py_SetProgramName has been removed from Python 3.13.
According to https://docs.python.org/3.13/whatsnew/3.13.html:
Py_SetProgramName(): set PyConfig.program_name instead.
https://docs.python.org/3.13/whatsnew/3.13.html
For the build logs, see:
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/@python/python3.13/fedora-r…
For all our attempts to build fontforge with Python 3.13, see:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/python/python3.13/package/fontfor…
Testing and mass rebuild of packages is happening in copr.
You can follow these instructions to test locally in mock if your package
builds with Python 3.13:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/python/python3.13/
Let us know here if you have any questions.
Python 3.13 is planned to be included in Fedora 41.
To make that update smoother, we're building Fedora packages with all
pre-releases of Python 3.13.
A build failure prevents us from testing all dependent packages (transitive
[Build]Requires),
so if this package is required a lot, it's important for us to get it fixed
soon.
We'd appreciate help from the people who know this package best,
but if you don't want to work on this now, let us know so we can try to work
around it on our side.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231791
[Bug 2231791] Fedora 40 FTBFS Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244836
[Bug 2244836] Python 3.13
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2245798
Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-sp…
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2207623
Bug ID: 2207623
Summary: Please branch and build mozilla-fira-fonts in epel9
Product: Fedora
Version: 38
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: mozilla-fira-fonts
Severity: medium
Assignee: relrod(a)redhat.com
Reporter: redhat(a)skarbek.name
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: admiller(a)redhat.com,
fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, relrod(a)redhat.com
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Please branch and build mozilla-fira-fonts in epel9.
Reproducible: Always
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2207623
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2088665
Bug ID: 2088665
Summary: Noto Sans is chosen to display symbol characters it
doesn't contain
Product: Fedora
Version: 36
Status: NEW
Component: google-noto-fonts
Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com
Reporter: talk(a)danielflaum.net
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
petersen(a)redhat.com, psatpute(a)redhat.com,
pwu(a)redhat.com, tagoh(a)redhat.com
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Created attachment 1881507
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1881507&action=edit
A zipped sample PDF and image of relevant portion of PDF when affected by the
issue
Description of problem:
Given a PDF lacking embedded fonts which use certain characters (including →
and ≥), GNOME's Evince on Fedora 36 chooses to substitute the Noto Sans font,
which does not include these characters.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
How reproducible:
Successfully reproduced by two people independently.
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Boot a fresh copy of Fedora 36 (the Live version in a VM will do).
2. Open the attached sample PDF in GNOME Evince (aka Document Viewer).
3. Observe the missing characters in the second paragraph from the top of the
page.
Actual results:
See attached image.
Expected results:
The missing characters should be displayed properly as → (that is,
https://unicode-table.com/en/2192/)
Additional info:
The filer initially sought help at
https://ask.fedoraproject.org/t/missing-characters-in-pdfs-since-upgrade-fr…,
which may be informative in reproducing the issue.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2088665
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080
Bug ID: 2093080
Summary: Default fonts for Arabic do not match the font
packages list
Product: Fedora
Version: 36
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
There's a test case:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_i18n_default_fonts
which requires checking the default fonts for various languages against a list,
http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/fonts/fc-test.sh .
The current default fonts for Arabic installs do not match the list. The list
states sans should be DejaVu Sans, serif should be FreeSerif or MPH 2B Damase,
and mono should be DejaVu Sans Mono. These may have been changed recently, as
our openQA reference text file expects them to be Noto Naskh Arabic (for both
sans and serif?) and PakType Naskh Basic for mono.
In any case, what we actually see doesn't match either the list or the openQA
reference file. We see "Noto Sans Arabic" and "PakType Naqsh" in the output
from the test, I think for serif (yes really) and monospace respectively.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080