October 2009 - i18n-bugs - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 530273] ibus-table-additional depends on OLD ibus-table

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530273 Rich Megginson <rmeggins(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|nhosoi(a)redhat.com, |cchance(a)redhat.com, |nkinder(a)redhat.com, |fedora-i18n-bugs(a)redhat.com |rmeggins(a)redhat.com |, phuang(a)redhat.com Component|389-admin-console |ibus-table AssignedTo|rmeggins(a)redhat.com |cchance(a)redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

14 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225617 --- Comment #25 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> 2009-10-22 05:27:38 EDT --- (In reply to comment #24) > (In reply to comment #23) > > 3. Some of the files in bitmap-console-fonts declare their name as > > "console8x8.pcf" which is almost certainly a bug > you are talking about fontname, or file name I'm talking about fontname as used by fontconfig (fc-query with the pkgkit format as used to generate rpm font metadata) > > 4. The Lucida Typewriter fonts in bitmap-fonts should be pushed in a > > bitmap-lucida-typewriter-fonts subpackage > in that case, bitmap-fonts rpm will be empty? It is perfectly possible to have a srpm that only generates subpackages with different names. rpm will only generate a bitmap-fonts rpm from the bitmap-fonts srpm if you put some files in it > > 6. you can probably kill the common file and put each license %doc in the > > corresponding subpackage (just put the %doc line after the corresponding > > %_font_pkg call). You just need to have each subpackage require > > fontpackages-filesystem direcly > > so here we suppose to remove common package, also README will not require > and put files for each subpackage in %doc, but we dont have any for console > what to do for it? If you don't have any doc for console, I guess it will be a doc-less subpackage :) The main use of -common if when you have bulky shared documentation (very often, big pdf files in the font world) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

14 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 225617] Merge Review: bitmap-fonts

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=225617 --- Comment #24 from Pravin Satpute <psatpute(a)redhat.com> 2009-10-22 05:07:15 EDT --- (In reply to comment #23) > > 2. You have some stray "fixed" font in bitmap-console-fonts yep console9x15.pcf has written fontname FixedMedium in that case i think we will require Fixed subpackage, with this file included > 3. Some of the files in bitmap-console-fonts declare their name as > "console8x8.pcf" which is almost certainly a bug you are talking about fontname, or file name i did not found this in fontname, please provide bit more info. > > 4. The Lucida Typewriter fonts in bitmap-fonts should be pushed in a > bitmap-lucida-typewriter-fonts subpackage in that case, bitmap-fonts rpm will be empty? > > 6. you can probably kill the common file and put each license %doc in the > corresponding subpackage (just put the %doc line after the corresponding > %_font_pkg call). You just need to have each subpackage require > fontpackages-filesystem direcly so here we suppose to remove common package, also README will not require and put files for each subpackage in %doc, but we dont have any for console what to do for it? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

14 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 527214] New: Use upstream tarball and make modifications during the build

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Use upstream tarball and make modifications during the build https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=527214 Summary: Use upstream tarball and make modifications during the build Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: sazanami-fonts AssignedTo: tagoh(a)redhat.com ReportedBy: caolanm(a)redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: tagoh(a)redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list(a)redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs(a)redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Created an attachment (id=363657) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=363657) alternative approach that self-documents our changes As described in rhbz#461617 we have a modified sazanami-fonts tarball that differs from the original. Apparently to change the 0x7E6B glyph in the Gothic and Mincho fonts according to rhbz##196433 Attached is a suggestion to use the original tarball and modify it during the build to swap in the two desired replacement glyphs using the ttx tool from fontutils. I don't have strong feelings about this one way or the other, but I feel this might be a rather "neater" and self-documenting mechanism to solving the original problem ? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

14 years, 7 months

1
6
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 530285] New: Specific Information about default font need to be displayed on global font settings' GUI

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Specific Information about default font need to be displayed on global font settings' GUI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530285 Summary: Specific Information about default font need to be displayed on global font settings' GUI Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Keywords: i18n Severity: medium Priority: low Component: fontconfig AssignedTo: besfahbo(a)redhat.com ReportedBy: apeter(a)redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: besfahbo(a)redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list(a)redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs(a)redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Created an attachment (id=365660) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=365660) Screenshot for the font GUI showing "Sans" Description of problem: (this cannot be termed as a "bug") The default font for Malayalam in Fedora is smc-meera-fonts. When logging into Malayalam locale, the font details appearing on the GUI (System->Preferences->Appearance->Font) is as shown in screenshot. It says "Sans" instead of "Meera". This does not give any information to the normal user about which font he is currently viewing on his desktop. I understand there are ways to get the font information from command line interface. But how to get this information on GUI? Please advise how this can be done and thus the purpose of GUI can be better served in a more useful way to the user. How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Login to Malayalam (ml_IN) locale 2. Select System->Preferences->Appearance->Font) 3. Check the font information displayed on GUI Actual results: font appear as "Sans" Expected results: >From user point of view I feel this must be shown as "Meera", as "Sans" does not give any information about the default font used in Malayalam -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

14 years, 7 months

1
1
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 529975] New: ghostscript files referred to outdated font info

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: ghostscript files referred to outdated font info https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529975 Summary: ghostscript files referred to outdated font info Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: cjkuni-fonts AssignedTo: cchance(a)redhat.com ReportedBy: htl10(a)users.sourceforge.net QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: petersen(a)redhat.com, cchance(a)redhat.com, fedora-fonts-bugs-list(a)redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs(a)redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Clone Of: 488398 +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #488398 +++ Description of problem: The /usr/share/ghostscript/config.d/*map* files just need to match exactly the locations and naming of the fonts. Issue refered in the old bug (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488398#c7) is recurring again, with a different variation: config refers to "/usr/share/fonts/cjkuni/uming.ttc", but the location on rawhide and f11 are both "/usr/share/fonts/cjkuni-uming/uming.ttc" (note the extra bits "-uming"). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

14 years, 7 months

1
2
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 476871] GDM uses wrong keyboard layout after switching back

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476871 --- Comment #14 from fujiwara <tfujiwar(a)redhat.com> 2009-10-21 05:31:11 EDT --- Now two upstreamed bugs are filed: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=572765 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=585290 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

14 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 526356] New: Please rebuild against new ibus libraries

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please rebuild against new ibus libraries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526356 Summary: Please rebuild against new ibus libraries Product: Fedora Version: 11 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: urgent Priority: low Component: ibus-anthy AssignedTo: tfujiwar(a)redhat.com ReportedBy: webmaster(a)aus-city.com QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: tagoh(a)redhat.com, tfujiwar(a)redhat.com, phuang(a)redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs(a)redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Description of problem: Resolving Dependencies --> Running transaction check ---> Package ibus.i586 0:1.2.0.20090927-1.fc11 set to be updated ---> Package ibus-anthy.i586 0:1.2.0.20090917-1.fc11 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: kasumi for package: ibus-anthy-1.2.0.20090917-1.fc11.i586 ---> Package ibus-gtk.i586 0:1.2.0.20090927-1.fc11 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: libibus.so.0 for package: ibus-chewing-1.2.0.20090917-1.fc11.i586 --> Processing Dependency: libibus.so.0 for package: ibus-hangul-1.1.0.20090328-2.fc11.i586 --> Processing Dependency: libibus.so.0 for package: ibus-rawcode-1.0.0.20090303-3.fc11.i586 --> Processing Dependency: libibus.so.0 for package: ibus-m17n-1.1.0.20090211-5.fc11.i586 ---> Package ibus-libs.i586 0:1.2.0.20090927-1.fc11 set to be updated ---> Package ibus-pinyin.noarch 0:1.2.0.20090915-1.fc11 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: python-enchant for package: ibus-pinyin-1.2.0.20090915-1.fc11.noarch --> Running transaction check --> Processing Dependency: libibus.so.0 for package: ibus-chewing-1.2.0.20090917-1.fc11.i586 --> Processing Dependency: libibus.so.0 for package: ibus-hangul-1.1.0.20090328-2.fc11.i586 --> Processing Dependency: libibus.so.0 for package: ibus-rawcode-1.0.0.20090303-3.fc11.i586 --> Processing Dependency: libibus.so.0 for package: ibus-m17n-1.1.0.20090211-5.fc11.i586 ---> Package kasumi.i586 0:2.4-2.fc11 set to be updated ---> Package python-enchant.i586 0:1.3.1-4.fc11 set to be updated --> Finished Dependency Resolution ibus-m17n-1.1.0.20090211-5.fc11.i586 from installed has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: libibus.so.0 is needed by package ibus-m17n-1.1.0.20090211-5.fc11.i586 (installed) ibus-chewing-1.2.0.20090917-1.fc11.i586 from installed has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: libibus.so.0 is needed by package ibus-chewing-1.2.0.20090917-1.fc11.i586 (installed) ibus-rawcode-1.0.0.20090303-3.fc11.i586 from installed has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: libibus.so.0 is needed by package ibus-rawcode-1.0.0.20090303-3.fc11.i586 (installed) ibus-hangul-1.1.0.20090328-2.fc11.i586 from installed has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: libibus.so.0 is needed by package ibus-hangul-1.1.0.20090328-2.fc11.i586 (installed) --> Running transaction check ---> Package ibus-libs.i586 0:1.2.0.20090927-1.fc11 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: ibus-libs = 1.2.0.20090927-1.fc11 for package: ibus-1.2.0.20090927-1.fc11.i586 --> Processing Dependency: libibus.so.1 for package: ibus-gtk-1.2.0.20090927-1.fc11.i586 --> Processing Dependency: libibus.so.1 for package: ibus-1.2.0.20090927-1.fc11.i586 --> Finished Dependency Resolution ibus-1.2.0.20090927-1.fc11.i586 from updates has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: ibus-libs = 1.2.0.20090927-1.fc11 is needed by package ibus-1.2.0.20090927-1.fc11.i586 (updates) ibus-1.2.0.20090927-1.fc11.i586 from updates has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: libibus.so.1 is needed by package ibus-1.2.0.20090927-1.fc11.i586 (updates) ibus-gtk-1.2.0.20090927-1.fc11.i586 from updates has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: libibus.so.1 is needed by package ibus-gtk-1.2.0.20090927-1.fc11.i586 (updates) --> Running transaction check ---> Package ibus.i586 0:1.2.0.20090927-1.fc11 set to be updated --> Processing Dependency: ibus >= 1.2.0 for package: ibus-pinyin-1.2.0.20090915-1.fc11.noarch --> Processing Dependency: ibus >= 1.2.0.20090904 for package: ibus-anthy-1.2.0.20090917-1.fc11.i586 ---> Package ibus-gtk.i586 0:1.2.0.20090927-1.fc11 set to be updated ---> Package ibus-libs.i586 0:1.2.0.20090927-1.fc11 set to be updated --> Finished Dependency Resolution ibus-pinyin-1.2.0.20090915-1.fc11.noarch from updates has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: ibus >= 1.2.0 is needed by package ibus-pinyin-1.2.0.20090915-1.fc11.noarch (updates) ibus-anthy-1.2.0.20090917-1.fc11.i586 from updates has depsolving problems --> Missing Dependency: ibus >= 1.2.0.20090904 is needed by package ibus-anthy-1.2.0.20090917-1.fc11.i586 (updates) Packages skipped because of dependency problems: ibus-1.2.0.20090927-1.fc11.i586 from updates ibus-anthy-1.2.0.20090917-1.fc11.i586 from updates ibus-gtk-1.2.0.20090927-1.fc11.i586 from updates ibus-libs-1.2.0.20090927-1.fc11.i586 from updates ibus-pinyin-1.2.0.20090915-1.fc11.noarch from updates kasumi-2.4-2.fc11.i586 from fedora python-enchant-1.3.1-4.fc11.i586 from fedora Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

14 years, 7 months

1
3
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 526633] Review Request: gargi-fonts - A Devanagari font

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526633 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> 2009-10-20 20:57:25 EDT --- gargi-fonts-1.9-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update gargi-fonts'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-10712 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

14 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 526633] Review Request: gargi-fonts - A Devanagari font

by Red Hat Bugzilla

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526633 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> 2009-10-20 20:50:38 EDT --- gargi-fonts-1.9-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update gargi-fonts'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-10660 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

14 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

i18n-bugs October 2009