[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1493652] New: Please add fcitx-cloudpinyin into EPEL 7
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1493652
Bug ID: 1493652
Summary: Please add fcitx-cloudpinyin into EPEL 7
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel7
Component: fcitx-cloudpinyin
Assignee: liangsuilong(a)gmail.com
Reporter: fge(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
liangsuilong(a)gmail.com, robinlee.sysu(a)gmail.com
Description of problem:
Please add fcitx-cloudpinyin into EPEL 7.
Simple recompile srpm from fedora works well in RHEL 7.4.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
How reproducible:
fcitx-cloudpinyin-0.3.4-5.el7.x86_64
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
Actual results:
Expected results:
Additional info:
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
6 years, 6 months
[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1496466] URW fonts not available in LibreOffice
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496466
--- Comment #17 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] <dkaspar(a)redhat.com> ---
Thanks for the explanation. That might help me to keep a little pressure on
Ghostscript for them to move to OTF at some point. :)
(In reply to Nicolas Mailhot from comment #16)
> All the usual suspects that concentrate "my text does not work" questions on
> Stack overflow…
Heh, yeah. :D You've summed it up perfectly. I guess I should create a new
tracking BZ in the future to track which of these apps now support OTF and
which not.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
6 years, 6 months
[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1496466] URW fonts not available in LibreOffice
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496466
--- Comment #16 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> ---
(In reply to David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] from comment #14)
> And as I mentioned in my previous comment, the ImageMagick also expects the
> Type1 /AFM fonts, and I expect there are some other applications might
> require it as well. Here's the list of packages requiring the old
> 'urw-fonts' package:
>
> ghostscript-core
> grace
> GraphicsMagick
> graphviz
> htmldoc
> ipe
> libwmf
> mscgen
> pdf-renderer
> pokerth
> root-core
> synfig
> xpdf
> ImageMagick
All the usual suspects that concentrate "my text does not work" questions on
Stack overflow…
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
6 years, 6 months
[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1496466] URW fonts not available in LibreOffice
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496466
--- Comment #15 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> ---
(In reply to David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] from comment #13)
> Looking at the sizes of the OTF and TTF, the OTF seems to be "compressed",
> therefore in order to save users' space, I would again vote for using this
> format.
TTF uses quadratic splines whereas OTF uses cubic splines. Type1 uses cubic
splines. That's why you can get lossless glyph shape conversion between Type1
and OTF but not between Type1 and TTF, and why upstream wrote they absolutely
needed a CFF format to make sure there was no deviation in metrics from the
standard.
(One can approximate a cubic spline with a series of quadratic splines, that's
how font tools convert Type1/OTF to TTF, the result is good enough for the
human eye, but technically it's not lossless. In your case absolutely no
deviation is better than minimal deviations given the glyph sizes are
standardised).
That's why generally speaking it's better to use OTF when evolving a Type1
font, except for legacy windows-oriented apps that understand TTF but not OTF.
Linux systems do not care they have good support both for OTF and for TTF.
Hardware has passed the point where computing cubics was significantly more
expensive than computing quadratics a long time ago.
The spline part of OTF files is more compact than Type1. One is CFF2 the other
is CFF1 — they are mathematically equivalent but the state of the art had
improved between both specs (both written essentially by Adobe).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
6 years, 6 months