fonts July 2008

fonts@lists.fedoraproject.org

20 participants
55 discussions

Start a nNew thread

What happened to tetex-fontools?
by Vasile Gaburici 24 Jul '08

24 Jul '08

I need those to install OpenType fonts for the traditional TeX! What does "Orphaned Package" mean?

2 4

Fwd: [Bug 456582] Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst
by Vasile Gaburici 24 Jul '08

24 Jul '08

Maybe somebody on this list is willing to sponsor me on this package: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <bugzilla(a)redhat.com> Date: Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:43 PM Subject: [Bug 456582] Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst To: gaburici(a)cs.umd.edu Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456582 gaburici(a)cs.umd.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |177841 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From gaburici(a)cs.umd.edu 2008-07-24 15:43 EST ------- Btw, this is my first package and I'm seeking a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.

1 0

[Fwd: Re: The goose OpenType eggs holds...]
by Nicolas Mailhot 24 Jul '08

24 Jul '08

-------------------------- Message original -------------------------- Objet: Re: The goose OpenType eggs holds... De: "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" <tcallawa redhat com> Date: Jeu 24 juillet 2008 17:15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 17:08 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > It's based on the raw data. That's explained in their presentations. > > > otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL, > > and could not change the license... > > I think so too, but IANAL. I'm sure an official Fedora notification > will make them relicense if necessary. Unless they are the copyright holder (not only for the new work, but also for the original source work), they cannot relicense something from GPL to GUST. Nor should Fedora even consider including anything which is doing that. Please consider this "an official Fedora notification" that this is not appropriate. ~spot -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

Re: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
by Vasile Gaburici 24 Jul '08

24 Jul '08

Well, in that case Fedora is in trouble already. The gyre OpenType fonts are already shipped by Fedora in a TeXLive package, just not used by pango! [vga@localhost ~]$ rpm -qif /usr/share/texmf/fonts/opentype/public/tex-gyre/texgyrepagella-regular.otf Name : texlive-texmf-fonts Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 2007 Vendor: Fedora Project Release : 22.fc9 Build Date: Tue 06 May 2008 12:01:32 AM EEST Install Date: Thu 29 May 2008 08:25:36 PM EEST Build Host: ppc4.fedora.phx.redhat.com Group : Applications/Publishing Source RPM: texlive-texmf-2007-22.fc9.src.rpm Size : 112425640 License: Artistic 2.0 and GPLv2 and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and LPPL and MIT and Public Domain and UCD and Utopia Signature : DSA/SHA1, Tue 06 May 2008 05:32:02 AM EEST, Key ID b44269d04f2a6fd2 Packager : Fedora Project URL : http://tug.org/texlive/ Summary : Font files needed for TeXLive Description : This package contains the components of the TEXMF tree needed for the texlive-fonts package. On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 18:29 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote: >> The GPL copyright holder for the original Type 1 fonts is URW, so they >> would have to send GUST notice of derived work infringement. Correct? > > To initiate legal proceedings, yes, but it doesn't mean that Fedora can > distribute it. Think of it as a stolen good. > > ~spot > >

3 2

Uniscribe support for locl
by Vasile Gaburici 24 Jul '08

24 Jul '08

I asked this on typophile beucase I saw the question mark in the DejaVu wiki, and MS has no info on their site about it. Apparently Vista and Office 2007 support locl, but it's enabled based on the "default language system" setting. I have no clue what it means, and I have neither Vista nor Office 2007, so I cannot test it. A new API must be used to enable it for a non-default language. Source: http://typophile.com/node/47683

1 0

Re: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
by Nicolas Mailhot 24 Jul '08

24 Jul '08

Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 16:37, Vasile Gaburici a écrit : > Chances are that these are newer incarnations of the shady package I > found. I'm saying this because Adobe's Thomas Phinney said on > typophile that the shady package most likely used Adobe FDK. As you > can see from their fea file, the gyre fonts do the same... As far as I'm concerned they can use all the proprietary tools they want as long as they do not incorporate proprietary content and their published sources can be manipulated by floss tools we can package. -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

The goose OpenType eggs holds...
by Vasile Gaburici 24 Jul '08

24 Jul '08

I've found CFF OpenType versions of the ghostscript URW fonts. AFAICT, they are well done: have kerning pairs (using the correct 'kern' feature for CFF files), has ligatures etc. They also fix the missing mappings for Romanian (no locl table yet...). The only troublesome point may that the author of the conversion seems to want to remain anonymous. The license of the fonts is still GPL. Here is the copyright notice that accompanies them: <copyright> Copyright of the contents of OpenType fonts package ------------------------------------------------------- The upstream sources of this package are available at ftp://ftp.cs.wisc.edu/ghost/gnu/fonts/gnu-gs-fonts-std-6.0.tar.gz This file is distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License. The copyright of each font is included in the fonts files as a comment near the start of each file. </copyright> The OTF font files themselves have the original URW copyright. Does anyone have a problem shipping these with Fedora? Package (as found) link: http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gaburici/Urw%20Gnu%20Opentype.zip

2 6

Are we really going to require fonts to be built from sources by Fedora packagers? [Was: Re: Suffix for "Old Standard" ?]
by Vasile Gaburici 24 Jul '08

24 Jul '08

Here are some troublesome points: - Free font authors may well use non-free tools like FontLab to write them. E.g., the recent variants of Liberation Sans by Gustavo Ferreira. - Free fonts may have a source that requires free-beer tools to produce, like Adobe FDK, e.g. the TeX Gyre fonts: http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/ - Free fonts may require FOSS tools that Fedora does currently ship, e.g. metatype-1 for Latin Modern: http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/latin-modern. BTW, there are some issues with the lack of OTF versions of these fonts from Fedora's TeXLive, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995#c24 On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> wrote: > > Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 01:11, Dave Crossland a écrit : >> >> 2008/7/23 Martin-Gomez Pablo <pablo.martin-gomez(a)laposte.net>: >>> >>> So we need to add a suffix to the name but I'm not imaginative for >>> finding a good suffix (maybe "iced" as Nicolas propose), anyone of >>> you have an lightning idea ? >> >> Why not use a build of FF from the same time the source files were >> published? > > 1. Other fonts in the distro depend on a recent fontforge release. If > we start requiring one fontforge version per font we're dead. > > 2. While the author objects most to the current fontforge version, I'm > almost sure he'd want us to change the font name even if we used the > exact same version as his. > > As the author says, we have to stand up for our own choices. Fedora > builds its content from sources. With fonts and pretty much anything > else that means aligning on a few build tool versions which are almost > certain not to be the same upstreams tested, and if this change > introduces problems, we have to track and get them fixed. > > (but at least we know we can re-generate and patch our version at > will, unlike organisations that copy a pre-built version and have no > idea how to fix it in case of problems) > > The author's feeling is not uncommon software-side too, you know. > > I think we'll try to bump the fontforge version in fedora-devel to the > latest available upstream just before F10 beta. And then rebuild every > font depending on it. This way Fedora 10 users will have a recent > fontforge in-distro and we'll be sure all our fonts work with it. > That's what we did in previous releases. > > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-fonts-list mailing list > Fedora-fonts-list(a)redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list > >

3 3

Fwd: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts?
by Vasile Gaburici 24 Jul '08

24 Jul '08

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Vasile Gaburici <vgaburici(a)gmail.com> Date: Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:51 AM Subject: Re: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts? To: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> I agree with all your points. Regarding point 7, I'm going to emphasize, as you did previously, that conversion from Type 1 to OpenType/CFF is a non-trivial job, as the recent thread on the OpenType versions of the URW fonts has shown. So, until someone finds the significant time required to do a proper conversion, we should try to make the type-1 fonts that Fedora does ship as usable as possible *in Fedora*. Currently I can use the URW Type 1 fonts that Fedora ships for [Unicode 3.0+ encoded] Romanian *in Windows*, but not in Fedora. I'm still investigating the best way to emulate Uniscribe's solution. The issue that URW's fonts have is shared by most commercial Type 1 fonts as well. Even if Fedora doesn't ship any of those, it would not hurt to have them work in Fedora since they require the same hack that URW fonts do. On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> wrote: > All, > > After the discussion on two public lists, and some public and private > exchanges on IRC with people whose opinion I respect a lot, since no > one proposed a problem-free way to do dual format packaging, and many > objected to all this complexity just to work around OpenOffice.org > bugs, I propose the following simplified policy. > > 1. If upstream works with one preferred OpenType format (TTF or OTF), > use this format. > > 2. If a font is available in both TTF (OpenType TT) and OTF (OpenType > CCF) formats, package the most recent and complete version. > > 3. If both formats are generated from the same source upstream, > package the OTF (OpenType CCF) version. The reason is most font > editors work with cubic splines natively, and we don't ignore CFF > hinting the way we do TT hinting (different legal context), so the OTF > version may be slightly better in our context. > > 4. For already packaged fonts, continue to package the TTF (OpenType > TT) format till OO.o is fixed. The reason is to avoid upsetting users > that already created documents using the TTF version, that won't work > anymore if we switch to OTF under their feet. After OO.o is fixed > apply the same policy as for new packages. > > 5. As an exception, a maintainer is allowed to use his best judgement > and package both versions in a single rpm, if a user manages to > convince him it's not a terribly bad idea. (but never do it by > default). Bear in mind that in addition to the previously mentioned > problems that will double the package size so livecd and > bandwidth-constrained users won't be happy about it. But at least the > packaging will be simple. > > 6. Since it seems several projects use different font names for the > OTF and TTF variants, systematically package a fontconfig ruleset that > maps the font name we do not package to the one we do. > > Is everyone happy with this? If you have a convincing argument to do > something else please speak up now. Otherwise I'll add these rules to > the wiki before the end of the week (and the start of my vacations), > and probably send them FPC/FESCO side so they can be officialized. > > Also I propose: > > 7. Do not package new Type1 fonts. If someone cares about a Type1 > font, he should get it converted to OpenType CFF before we consider > packaging it. (though it seems Type1 is moribund enough no one has > proposed new Type1 fonts in ages) > > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-fonts-list mailing list > Fedora-fonts-list(a)redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list > >

1 0

Suffix for "Old Standard" ?
by pablo.martin-gomez 24 Jul '08

24 Jul '08

Hi, As I'm attempting to create a package of the (great) Old Standard font, I have mail the founder and have got the answer (forwarded). The answer is quite harsh (if that I spare you the "anti-source building" paragraph. So we need to add a suffix to the name but I'm not imaginative for finding a good suffix (maybe "iced" as Nicolas propose), anyone of you have an lightning idea ? Pablo ----- Message Transféré ----- Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:08:35 +0400 De: Alexey Kryukov <anagnost(a)yandex.ru> À: Martin-Gomez Pablo <pablo.martin-gomez(a)laposte.net> Sujet: Re: Packaging "Old Standard" font in Fedora On Wednesday 23 July 2008, you wrote: > about building Old Standard from source. Do you still wish us to > change the name of the font if we built it (without any > modifications) from sources ? It would be quite daft to have Old > Standard packaged in Fedora without it original name. Unfortunately, yes. I don't insist the name should be changed entirely, adding a suffix (say, "Old Standard FC") would be sufficient and even preferrable. The reason is that I could not update the source package on my site for more than a year (instead I was spending my efforts improving FontForge itself :), and the current FF version is not guaranteed to produce correct results with such old source files. This can lead to problems I have no intention to be responsible of. [...] -- Regards, Alexej Kryukov <anagnost at yandex dot ru> Moscow State University Historical Faculty

3 2

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts July 2008