https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845712
--- Comment #10 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net --- (In reply to comment #7)
Maybe we should have a @base-fonts group to help people that refuse/don't install @fonts?
What would be the point? The default packages in @fonts are already those supposed to be vetted by i18n to get the language coverage of a Fedora default install. If we manage @fonts defaults properly, there is no reason to cut down @fonts except if someone wants less than our default coverage, and in that case they can put the font packages they want in their kickstart manually.
The nice thing about the current system is that trying to set up a spin or custom install without @fonts is not transparent for technical persons that live in ASCII land all day round. If they remove @fonts they have to select the font packages to replace it or the install is broken for them too, and at this point most realise it's not a good idea to mess with font defaults unless you have a very good idea of the language coverage you target and of the properties of the available fonts. Clean breakage is a lot better than semi-breakage that can only occurs in specific locales, or when rendering people names
If we had a latin font fallback somewhere we'd get a lot of broken spins i18n-wise: they'd snip @fonts as part of slimming down, don't notice the breakage for their own use, and by the time the spin was finalised and pushed to users that did need the coverage it would be too late.
fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org