fonts-bugs April 2024

fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org

2 participants
24 discussions

[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 19 May '24

19 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 15 May '24

15 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 22 Apr '24

22 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

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts-bugs April 2024