February 2023 - fonts-bugs - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 2056256] Review Request: fbf-jamrul-fonts - Sans-Serif styled OpenType Bengali Font

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056256 Package Review <package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(mitra_anirban@yah | |oo.co.in) --- Comment #1 from Package Review <package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> --- This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2056256

1 year, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 2051859] Review Request: fbf-mitra-font : Experimental Monospace Bengali Font

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051859 Package Review <package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(panemade(a)gmail.co | |m) --- Comment #6 from Package Review <package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> --- This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051859

1 year, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 2129399] Postscript standard symbol font is not looked up correctly

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129399 --- Comment #31 from rgb(a)phy.duke.edu --- Well, I read the fonts-conf documentation and examples pretty thoroughly, installed font-manager so I could see the fonts themselves, and there are many, many font sets on the system that contain the requisite characters. It is very difficult to tell which one is causing the problem or how to replace it. I spent two hours trying variations on your <alias> section including <match> statements, replacing the various systems fond initialization steps, etc. It sadly remains the case that while I can display my unembedded test file on a scientific linux box in the department and it renders perfectly (over X) when I try to look at exactly the same file on Fedora it has nothing but boxes. My embedded font ps2pdf version of the same file displays everywhere. I agree that it is probably something in /etc/fonts/fonts.conf and/or /etc/fonts/conf.d/[??]whatever-symbol-font-isn't-working.conf and that just the right override might fix it, that requires diffing and checking around 100+ files, most of which are certainly irrelevant, looking for a possibly significant change in an XML that I don't completely understand to see which one works correctly on scientific linux (a RH base IIRC) but not on Fedora (another RH base). I could maybe install a Centos VM to test -- I don't have a RH license on any personal systems, obviously. The possibility remains that it is a change in evince itself as well. This I can't really test -- obviously, if I copy over a binary from the system where it works it has the wrong libraries on my laptop, and mucking around at the library level is an open invitation to having to do a hard reinstall (been there, done that:-). Right now I HAVE to go back to my regular work and write a quiz for my physics students with (sigh) embedded fonts and so far I nothing I've done has fundamentally broken font rendering per se, but in any event no, the alias above does not work whether or not it is font.conf or 0-symbol.conf. The documentation suggests that the former is the right place for it -- and I could verify that this file was indeed being parsed in real time as I made changes as errors were instantly reported in tty's containing rendered fonts -- but the latter seems like it might only be scanned at boot or login time, since the leading 00 (if I understand things) represents the order in which the file configs are layered at startup. I >>think<< the system rereads this ever 30 seconds by default so it shouldn't matter, but again -- no time to test, an incredibly complex system and syntax, and crappy tools for manipulating it or even displaying it. Font-manager is the best I've found, but I don't know if it can be used to rewrite rules yet (or if it is wise to trust it while doing so). Sorry. -- 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 year, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 2129399] Postscript standard symbol font is not looked up correctly

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129399 --- Comment #30 from Akira TAGOH <tagoh(a)redhat.com> --- Sorry, my words weren't enough. Well, you may need to write a config like the above but replace DejaVu Sans to any of them. Unfortunately just installing them doesn't help right. I'm asking what is sufficient for alternatives of Symbol font. Please put the following config into $HOME/.config/fontconfig/conf.d/0-symbol.conf and replacing FONTNAME to any of "Noto Sans Symbols", "Noto Sans Symbols 2", "Symbola". <fontconfig> <alias> <family>Symbol</family> <default><family>FONTNAME</family></default> </alias> </fontconfig> This will makes fontconfig to pick up any of them as alternatives to Symbol. -- 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 year, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 2129399] Postscript standard symbol font is not looked up correctly

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129399 --- Comment #29 from rgb(a)phy.duke.edu --- Doesn't work with any or all of these three installed, sorry. So far, the only solution I've found that consistently works is embedding fonts with e.g. ps2pdf -dPDFSETTINGS=/printer solutions-for-week.ps so that's in all of my work Makefiles. It is still a problem, though, that hasn't gone away. -- 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 year, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 2129399] Postscript standard symbol font is not looked up correctly

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2129399 --- Comment #28 from Akira TAGOH <tagoh(a)redhat.com> --- BTW does google-noto-sans-symbols-fonts and/or google-noto-sans-symbols2-fonts help? If not, how about gdouros-symbola-fonts? -- 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 year, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 2166360] New: sil-andika-fonts-6.200 is available

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2166360 Bug ID: 2166360 Summary: sil-andika-fonts-6.200 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: sil-andika-fonts Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: aekoroglu(a)linux.intel.com Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: aekoroglu(a)linux.intel.com, fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Releases retrieved: 6.200 Upstream release that is considered latest: 6.200 Current version/release in rawhide: 6.101-3.fc38 URL: https://software.sil.org/andika/ 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... 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/4816/ To change the monitoring settings for the project, please visit: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/sil-andika-fonts -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2166360

1 year, 3 months

1
2
0 / 0

[Bug 2164994] New: fontconfig-2.14.2 is available

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2164994 Bug ID: 2164994 Summary: fontconfig-2.14.2 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, 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, rstrode(a)redhat.com, sandmann(a)redhat.com, tagoh(a)redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Releases retrieved: 2.14.2 Upstream release that is considered latest: 2.14.2 Current version/release in rawhide: 2.14.1-3.fc38 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Upstream_Release... 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/ To change the monitoring settings for the project, please visit: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fontconfig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2164994

1 year, 3 months

1
3
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts-bugs February 2023