On 3 October 2013 16:34, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-08-26 at 17:15 +0530, pravin.d.s(a)gmail.com wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > Recently i done packaging of google-noto-fonts [1] for Fedora. With
> > this font we got number of new script fonts of Unicode which were not
> > available earlier. [2]
>
> Sorry to pick old emails, I have a devel@ backlog currently.
>
> Just a plea to please be very conservative introducing new packages (and
> hence extra size) to the default set, as both the DVD and desktop live
> images are currently (Alpha, and Beta TC1) oversize and need trimming. I
> think we should aim to have sufficient font coverage for all practical
> out-of-the-box Fedora usage, but try and do so as efficiently as
> possible, at least as long as we're sticking to current image size
> targets. Thanks!
>
Yes, do agree with.
<packagereq type="default">google-noto-sans-lisu-fonts</packagereq>
-> 12K
<packagereq
type="default">google-noto-sans-mandaic-fonts</packagereq> -> 20K
<packagereq
type="default">google-noto-sans-meeteimayek-fonts</packagereq> -> 20K
<packagereq
type="default">google-noto-sans-tagalog-fonts</packagereq> -> 16K
<packagereq
type="default">google-noto-sans-tai-tham-fonts</packagereq> -> 36K
<packagereq
type="default">google-noto-sans-tai-viet-fonts</packagereq> -> 20K
Above are the packages added to default install list of Fedora from
google-noto-fonts, i believe these are important and we don't have
substitute for them in existing default fonts list packages.
Regards,
Pravin Satpute