current state and future of liberation-fonts
by Fabian Greffrath
[Sorry for the re-post, I did not know had to subscribe to the Fedora list.]
Hello Pravin Satpute et al.,
I am one of the maintainers of the liberation-fonts package in Debian
(it is called fonts-liberation there [1]) and I am a bit concerned about
the current state of development and the future of these fonts. I have
read that the new release 2.00.1 based on Google Crosscore fonts has
been defered from Fedora 18 because of rendering regressions [2].
However, since then development has apparently stopped in the GIT
repository [3].
Have these rendering regressions been identified? Are they going to get
addressed in the fonts or in other parts of the font rendering stack?
Will there be another release of the liberation-fonts in the short term
or have these fonts been defered altogether in favor of another font family?
Thanks for your replies,
- Fabian
[1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/f/fonts-liberation.html
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885596
[3] https://git.fedorahosted.org/git/liberation-fonts.git
9 years, 10 months
Help required for the application installer
by Richard Hughes
Hi all,
I'm one of the main developers of gnome-software, which is an
application and addon installer which we're installing as a tech
preview in Fedora 20. In F20 the fonts are listed individually, with
untranslated names direct from the font itself. That means we get
several hundred "fonts" with no proper short descriptions, and the
names are less than ideal. For example:
"mnml icons", "M+ 1c black", "Droid Sans Fallback"
So, for Fedora 21 we're working more towards a mockup like
https://raw.github.com/gnome-design-team/gnome-mockups/master/software/ve...
-- don't worry too much about the glyph images in that screenshot, the
basic point I want to get across is that rather than showing
"lato-black-regular, lato-black-italic, lato-thin-regular,
lato-thin-italic" as separate fonts, we want to show "Lato" as a
_single_ addon, with 3 fonts (black, thin, regular) each with separate
styles (bold, italic, etc).
This means I need some extra metadata, and some translated
descriptions. This is where you kind people come in. I've setup a
spreadsheet with 4 columns here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtzJKpbiGX1zdC05ZlA0dEZTQmYy...
* The ID is what gnome-software uses internally, don't read too much
into the format.
* The "Parent" is supposed to be the parent font name, so for
instance, "Lato Thin" and "Lato Black" would both have the parent of
"Lato"
* The "Name" is currently set at what the font provides us with, and
we can tweak this if requires, for instance "roadstencil" can become
"Road Stencil"
* The "Summary" is a one line description of the font, for instance
"Lato is a sanserif typeface family". You only need one description
per parent.
* The "Description" is a 2-3 paragraph description of the font, which
is optional as it's not currently shown in the mockup. It's included
here for completeness as it could be shown in the future when the user
clicks "More info".
I would be very grateful of any help, as all of you know two order of
magnitude more about fonts than me. If you also have any comments
about the UI mockups, either reply to this email, or ping me, jimmac
or aday in #gnome-design on GIMPNet.
I've filled in a few details on the spreadsheet[1] already, but feel
free to change what I've already done if it's wrong.
Thanks,
Richard
[1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtzJKpbiGX1zdC05ZlA0dEZTQmYy...
10 years, 1 month
Re: Fonts with default Fedora installation
by pravin.d.s＠gmail.com
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
10 years, 2 months
