April 2024 - fonts-bugs - Fedora mailing-lists

[Bug 2267629] New: liberation-mono-fonts breaks default font for Hebrew
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 03 Mar '25

03 Mar '25

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267629 Bug ID: 2267629 Summary: liberation-mono-fonts breaks default font for Hebrew Product: Fedora Version: 40 OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: google-noto-fonts Keywords: i18n Severity: medium Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com Reporter: tagoh(a)redhat.com 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 google-noto-sans-hebrew-vf-fonts is supposed to be a default monospace font for Hebrew though, liberation-mono-fonts is picked up as the default monospace font when it is installed. This happens because liberation use 59 as the priority number although google-noto-sans-hebrew-vf-fonts use 66. The priority number needs to be updated. 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=2267629 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-sp…

1 3

[Bug 2277345] New: NotoSansMono[wght].ttf file name causes scripts with failglob enabled to fail
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 03 Mar '25

03 Mar '25

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277345 Bug ID: 2277345 Summary: NotoSansMono[wght].ttf file name causes scripts with failglob enabled to fail Product: Fedora Version: 40 Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: google-noto-fonts Severity: medium Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com Reporter: hartsjc(a)redhat.com 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 shopt failglob If set, patterns which fail to match filenames during pathname expansion result in an expansion error. Using this feature is good practice in scripts as helps prevent scripting mistakes; however, having file name with square brackets causes failures. And with Fedora 40 upgrade seems google-noto-sans-mono-vf-fonts-20240301-2.fc40.noarch has added one with: /usr/share/fonts/google-noto-vf/NotoSansMono[wght].ttf Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Causes globs that don't expand to cause errors $ shopt -s failglob 2. Try use files from rpm as variable, and fail $ for file in $(rpm -q --list google-noto-sans-mono-vf-fonts) ; do [[ -f "/${file}" ]] || echo "${file}" done -bash: no match: /usr/share/fonts/google-noto-vf/NotoSansMono[wght].ttf 3. Note the RC $ echo $? 1 4. Or even command line $ rpm -qf /usr/share/fonts/google-noto-vf/NotoSansMono[wght].ttf -bash: no match: /usr/share/fonts/google-noto-vf/NotoSansMono[wght].ttf $ rpm -qf '/usr/share/fonts/google-noto-vf/NotoSansMono[wght].ttf' google-noto-sans-mono-vf-fonts-20240301-2.fc40.noarch Actual Results: -bash: no match: /usr/share/fonts/google-noto-vf/NotoSansMono[wght].ttf Expected Results: no error accessing files with failglob shopt enabled started fedora 40 upgrade, as daily script of mine fails because this file is included in initramfs too. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2277345 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-sp…

1 6

[Bug 2274629] New: Please branch and build artwiz-aleczapka-fonts in epel9
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 27 Feb '25

27 Feb '25

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274629 Bug ID: 2274629 Summary: Please branch and build artwiz-aleczapka-fonts in epel9 Product: Fedora EPEL Version: epel9 Status: NEW Component: artwiz-aleczapka-fonts Assignee: dchen(a)redhat.com Reporter: davide(a)cavalca.name QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: dchen(a)redhat.com, fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, spotrh(a)gmail.com Blocks: 1914423 (EPELPackagersSIG) Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Please branch and build artwiz-aleczapka-fonts in epel9. If you do not wish to maintain artwiz-aleczapka-fonts in epel9, or do not think you will be able to do this in a timely manner, the EPEL Packagers SIG would be happy to be a co-maintainer of the package; please add the epel-packagers-sig group through https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/artwiz-aleczapka-fonts/addgroup and grant it commit access, or collaborator access on epel* branches. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1914423 [Bug 1914423] Tracker for epel-packagers-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274629 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-sp…

1 10

[Bug 2166360] New: sil-andika-fonts-6.200 is available
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 13 Feb '25

13 Feb '25

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_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/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 4

[Bug 2262410] New: Fonts are looking wrong after 20240101 update
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 27 Nov '24

27 Nov '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262410 Bug ID: 2262410 Summary: Fonts are looking wrong after 20240101 update Product: Fedora Version: 39 Hardware: x86_64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: google-noto-fonts Severity: medium Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com Reporter: priv.luk(a)gmail.com 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 Fonts look improperly in multiple places, e.g. mpv or KDE file picker. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Open mpv and look at OSD fonts Actual Results: Fonts look wrong Expected Results: Fonts look properly See https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/issues/13396 for screenshots. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2262410 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-sp…

1 37

[Bug 1999078] New: Hinting broken for Bitstream Vera/DejaVu in Epiphany
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 27 Nov '24

27 Nov '24

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 43

[Bug 1833858] New: Hangul Jamo is seperated and printed respectively
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 27 Nov '24

27 Nov '24

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.

1 43

[Bug 2213602] New: update to version 7.0
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 30 Sep '24

30 Sep '24

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…

1 5

[Bug 1999864] New: Cannot find package with font for Coptic although such a package exists for Fedora 34
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 19 Sep '24

19 Sep '24

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.

1 15

[Bug 2251384] New: Wrong Arabic font prioritization in several apps. (Droid kufi prioritized over noto-sans)
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 05 Sep '24

05 Sep '24

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…

1 12

[Bug 2247028] New: fonttools fails to build with Python 3.13: error: implicit declaration of function ‘_PyLong_Copy’
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 01 Jul '24

01 Jul '24

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…

1 1

[Bug 2260975] New: alfont: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f40
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 15 Jun '24

15 Jun '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260975 Bug ID: 2260975 Summary: alfont: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f40 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: alfont Assignee: hdegoede(a)redhat.com Reporter: releng(a)fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, hdegoede(a)redhat.com Blocks: 2231791 (F40FTBFS) Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora alfont failed to build from source in Fedora rawhide/f40 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=112192424 For details on the mass rebuild see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_40_Mass_Rebuild Please fix alfont at your earliest convenience and set the bug's status to ASSIGNED when you start fixing it. If the bug remains in NEW state for 8 weeks, alfont will be orphaned. Before branching of Fedora 41, alfont will be retired, if it still fails to build. For more details on the FTBFS policy, please visit: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails… Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2231791 [Bug 2231791] Fedora 40 FTBFS Tracker -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2260975 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-sp…

1 5

[Bug 2245798] New: fontforge fails to build with Python 3.13: error: implicit declaration of function `Py_SetProgramName`
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 15 Jun '24

15 Jun '24

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…

1 2

[Bug 2258723] New: Variable fonts packages dont include all axis
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 20 May '24

20 May '24

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/google-… 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-sp…

1 2

[Bug 2207623] New: Please branch and build mozilla-fira-fonts in epel9
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 16 May '24

16 May '24

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

1 5

Demand Q2/2024
by Axt＠fedoraproject.org 30 Apr '24

30 Apr '24

1 0

[Bug 2253923] [abrt] setroubleshoot: _FcObjectLookupOtherTypeByName(): python3.12 killed by SIGABRT
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 23 Apr '24

23 Apr '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253923 Parag Nemade <pnemade(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Status|NEW |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-04-23 03:30:51 --- Comment #16 from Parag Nemade <pnemade(a)redhat.com> --- Thanks for your comment. Please do keep reporting bugs as and when you find them. But good to add one more comment to bug about what were you doing when that bug occurred. This will help us to follow same steps to reproduce reported bug. Bugs detected by Fedora shows how many times its detected. So if you find count more than 1 time bug is detected then you can try to remember what were you doing that might have caused that bug detected by Fedora on your system. Right now I am closing this bug as there is not much information available on how to reproduce this bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253923 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-sp…

1 0

[Bug 2253923] [abrt] setroubleshoot: _FcObjectLookupOtherTypeByName(): python3.12 killed by SIGABRT
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 22 Apr '24

22 Apr '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253923 Sylvain Arth <sylvain(a)gwenved.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(sylvain(a)gwenved.o | |rg) | --- Comment #15 from Sylvain Arth <sylvain(a)gwenved.org> --- I'd like to answer, to the question "How to reproduce" because I really can't. Nowadays; all my Fedora OS machines are running as virtual machines on two different Windows servers. The main purpose of those instances is to act as servers for mails, DNS, NTP and many other usual servers like that. Punctually, I use them for comparison about possibly different behaviour about "mock-up software" of my personal coding in Ada complied with GNAT. In other words, I usually just check by emails that all those V-machines and servers are still in good health. I very rarely fall into the bug I reported, whilst I'm currently doing anything on. Most of the time, It's after reboot-startup (clean or dirty because of some failure of the hosting PC), at login time I get the warning about bugs detected by Fedora. I could ignore them, but my thought is that it could help bug solving, with providing more data, even "raw" ones. I very know this is not quite at all the best bug reporting way. But I also know (I was famous about that prior I retired) my "bug catcher" reputation. In other words, I tend to fall into bug traps other people never fall in. I ignore why about this, I just know it's a fact. I just suspect it's because I've my own way to do things that is often not the "most common way to do things". But if my reports are rather totally useless, just tell me that's the actual case. If so, I will totally stop top sending such kind of reports, to only report those I'm able to tell something like a clue about "how to reproduce, possibly". Regards -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253923 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-sp…

1 0

[Bug 2272857] New: fontawesome-fonts-6.5.2 is available
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 19 Apr '24

19 Apr '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2272857 Bug ID: 2272857 Summary: fontawesome-fonts-6.5.2 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: fontawesome-fonts Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: pvoborni(a)redhat.com Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, loganjerry(a)gmail.com, mrunge(a)redhat.com, pvoborni(a)redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Releases retrieved: 6.5.2 Upstream release that is considered latest: 6.5.2 Current version/release in rawhide: 6.5.1-3.fc40 URL: http://fontawesome.io 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/826/ To change the monitoring settings for the project, please visit: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fontawesome-fonts -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2272857 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-sp…

1 8

[Bug 1580458] [ta_IN] Error in latest Tamil ttf
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 19 Apr '24

19 Apr '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1580458 Parag Nemade <pnemade(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|38 |40 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1580458

1 0

[Bug 2253923] [abrt] setroubleshoot: _FcObjectLookupOtherTypeByName(): python3.12 killed by SIGABRT
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 15 Apr '24

15 Apr '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253923 Parag Nemade <pnemade(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(sylvain(a)gwenved.o | |rg) --- Comment #14 from Parag Nemade <pnemade(a)redhat.com> --- how to reproduce this reported issue? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2253923 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-sp…

1 0

[Bug 2273774] New: fonttools-4.51.0 is available
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 10 Apr '24

10 Apr '24

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2273774 Bug ID: 2273774 Summary: fonttools-4.51.0 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, tagoh(a)redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Releases retrieved: 4.51.0 Upstream release that is considered latest: 4.51.0 Current version/release in rawhide: 4.50.0-1.fc41 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=2273774 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-sp…

1 4

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts-bugs April 2024