[Bug 2245798] New: fontforge fails to build with Python 3.13: error:
implicit declaration of function `Py_SetProgramName`
by bugzilla@redhat.com
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...
For all our attempts to build fontforge with Python 3.13, see:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/g/python/python3.13/package/fontf...
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-...
1 week, 4 days
[Bug 2258723] New: Variable fonts packages dont include all axis
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258723
Bug ID: 2258723
Summary: Variable fonts packages dont include all axis
Product: Fedora
Version: 39
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: google-noto-fonts
Keywords: RFE
Severity: low
Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com
Reporter: sharpenedblade(a)proton.me
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
petersen(a)redhat.com, pwu(a)redhat.com, tagoh(a)redhat.com
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
The *-vf packages package files from the `slim-variable-ttf` dir, which do not
include every axis available for the font. Variable font files with all
supported axis are in `variable-ttf` dir instead.
Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install `google-noto-sans-vf`
2. Check which axis are supported
3. Download
`https://github.com/notofonts/notofonts.github.io/archive/refs/tags/noto-monthly-release-23.8.1.tar.gz`
and look in the `fonts/NotoSans/unhinted/variable-ttf` direcotry
Actual Results:
Only the weight axis is variable in this package
Expected Results:
The weight and width axis are variable in this package
Changing the path at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/google-noto-fonts/blob/rawhide/f/googl...
works for every variable font/script except for NotoKufiArabic, which has the
complete font files in the `variable` dir.
Before compression, this is ~16mb larger than before (total, across all
subpackages).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2258723
Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-...
1 month, 1 week
[Bug 1999078] New: Hinting broken for Bitstream Vera/DejaVu in
Epiphany
by bugzilla@redhat.com
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.
1 month, 1 week
[Bug 2088665] New: Noto Sans is chosen to display symbol characters
it doesn't contain
by bugzilla@redhat.com
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-...,
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
3 months, 1 week
[Bug 2093080] New: Default fonts for Arabic do not match the font
packages list
by bugzilla@redhat.com
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
3 months, 1 week
[Bug 1761885] New: rpm -V complains about mode for ghost .uuid files
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1761885
Bug ID: 1761885
Summary: rpm -V complains about mode for ghost .uuid files
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: fontpackages
Assignee: nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net
Reporter: mtasaka(a)fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net, paul(a)frixxon.co.uk,
redhat-bugzilla(a)linuxnetz.de, tagoh(a)redhat.com
Target Milestone: ---
Link ID: Red Hat Bugzilla 1564432
Classification: Fedora
Description of problem:
rpm -Va complains a lot about mode of %ghost .uuid files:
.M....... g /usr/share/fonts/paktype-naqsh/.uuid
.M....... g /usr/share/fonts/lilypond/.uuid
.M....... g /usr/share/fonts/sil-padauk/.uuid
.M....... g /usr/share/fonts/google-droid/.uuid
.M....... g /usr/share/fonts/lilypond/.uuid
.M....... g /usr/share/fonts/smc-suruma/.uuid
.M....... g /usr/share/fonts/google-android-emoji/.uuid
.M....... g /usr/share/fonts/google-crosextra-carlito/.uuid
.M....... g /usr/share/fonts/lohit-assamese/.uuid
.M....... g /usr/share/fonts/dejavu/.uuid
.M....... g /usr/share/fonts/lohit-telugu/.uuid
.M....... g /usr/share/fonts/lilypond/.uuid
.....
Looks like fontpackages-devel template rpmmacro creates .uuid which %ghost
%atttr(0000)
e.g.
[root@localhost ~]# rpm -qf /usr/share/fonts/google-droid/.uuid
google-droid-sans-fonts-20120715-16.fc31.noarch
[root@localhost ~]# rpm -qlv google-droid-sans-fonts | grep uuid
---------- 1 root root 0 7月 25 23:03
/usr/share/fonts/google-droid/.uuid
ref:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fontpackages/blob/master/f/fontpackage...
but I guess %transfiletriggerin script by fontconfig creates .uuid as 0755
permission (perhaps)
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
fontpackages-filesystem-1.44-25.fc31.noarch
fontconfig-2.13.92-3.fc31.x86_64
fontconfig-2.13.92-3.fc31.i686
google-droid-sans-fonts-20120715-16.fc31.noarch
How reproducible:
100%
Steps to Reproduce:
1. See above, try $ rpm -Va
2.
3.
Actual results:
See above, lots of .uuid permission complaint
Expected results:
No complaint by rpm -Va
Additional info:
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4 months