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=2283903
Bug ID: 2283903
Summary: paktype-naskh-basic-fonts should have higher priority
so it is default for Urdu and Pakistani
Product: Fedora
Version: 40
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: paktype-naskh-basic-fonts
Severity: medium
Assignee: sshil(a)redhat.com
Reporter: petersen(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
petersen(a)redhat.com, psatpute(a)redhat.com,
sshil(a)redhat.com, vishalvijayraghavan(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
$ rpm -q paktype-naskh-basic-fonts -l | grep conf.d
/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-0-paktype-naskh-basic-fonts.conf
~$ rpm -q google-noto-sans-arabic-vf-fonts -l | grep conf.d
/etc/fonts/conf.d/56-google-noto-sans-arabic-vf.conf
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=2283903
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=2283902
Bug ID: 2283902
Summary: paktype-naskh-basic-fonts should be used as default
font for Urdu
Product: Fedora
Version: 40
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: google-noto-fonts
Severity: medium
Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com
Reporter: petersen(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
$ rpm -q paktype-naskh-basic-fonts -l | grep conf.d
/etc/fonts/conf.d/65-0-paktype-naskh-basic-fonts.conf
$ rpm -q google-noto-sans-arabic-vf-fonts -l | grep conf.d
/etc/fonts/conf.d/56-google-noto-sans-arabic-vf.conf
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=2283902
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=2282595
Bug ID: 2282595
Summary: No upgrade path for
linux-libertine-fonts-common-5.3.0-24.2012_07_02.fc38
to F39
Product: Fedora
Version: 39
Status: NEW
Component: linux-libertine-fonts
Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com
Reporter: ppisar(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, kevin(a)scrye.com,
tagoh(a)redhat.com
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
After upgrading Fedora 38 to 39, I found that
linux-libertine-fonts-common-5.3.0-24.2012_07_02.fc38 kept non-updated.
Comparing linux-libertine-fonts-common with
linux-libertine-fonts-5.3.0-26.2012_07_02.fc39.noarch shows they package a
similar set of files, including the font files.
I can see that linux-libertine-fonts "Obsoletes: linux-libertine-fonts-common <
5.3.0-24". I guess you need to update the obsoleted release to "< 5.3.0-25".
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2282595
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…