September 2017 - i18n-bugs - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1487123] Review Request: eosrei-emojione-fonts - A color emoji font

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1487123 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2017-09-30 02:27:30 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- eosrei-emojione-fonts-1.0-5.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

6 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1484894] New: [im-chooser] ibus preference link is broken

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484894 Bug ID: 1484894 Summary: [im-chooser] ibus preference link is broken Product: Fedora Version: 26 Component: im-chooser Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com Reporter: jylo06g(a)gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, tagoh(a)redhat.com Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 1.7.0-1.fc26 Steps to Reproduce: 1. Start im-chooser http://www.localizingjapan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/fedora16-1... 2. Choose ibus (or no need?) 3. Click the blue underlined Preference link like nuts Actual results: Nothing happens Expected results: ibus-setup suppose to show up(?) Additional info: 1. On Mate, there's im-chooser (and ibus) included but it doesn't work 2. On GNOME, you have to install im-chooser and it also doesn't work 3. GNOME probably doesn't need im-chooser anyway since ibus integrated with GNOME Settings but things are different (and broken) for other desktop environments Side note: Is (after choosing) ibus no longer showing Preference from drop down [EN] box normal? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

6 years, 7 months

1
7
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1387825] The default keyboard layout for zh_TW (traditional Chinese) should be "us" instead of "cn"

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387825 --- Comment #8 from Cheng-Chia Tseng <pswo10680(a)gmail.com> --- Yes, I think that is fine. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

6 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1496773] subpackage color fonts and install by default

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496773 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Desire "Noto Color Emoji" |subpackage color fonts and |font is installed by |install by default |default | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

6 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1496773] Desire "Noto Color Emoji" font is installed by default

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496773 --- Comment #2 from Mike FABIAN <mfabian(a)redhat.com> --- (In reply to Mike FABIAN from comment #1) > So we can not install only the color font by installing > only google-noto-emoji-color-fonts. I meant of course we can *now* install only the colour font. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

6 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1496773] Desire "Noto Color Emoji" font is installed by default

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496773 --- Comment #1 from Mike FABIAN <mfabian(a)redhat.com> --- I have split the color and the black-and-white font into different sub-packages now: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-9d9798ccbf google-noto-emoji-fonts-20170928-1.fc27.src.rpm google-noto-emoji-color-fonts-20170928-1.fc27.noarch.rpm google-noto-emoji-fonts-20170928-1.fc27.noarch.rpm So we can not install only the color font by installing only google-noto-emoji-color-fonts. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

6 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1496466] URW fonts not available in LibreOffice

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496466 Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(dkaspar(a)redhat.co | |m) --- Comment #6 from Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos(a)gmail.com> --- (In reply to Nicolas Mailhot from comment #5) > I hate when people ship legacy font formats "just because they may be useful > for someone", OpenType won a long time ago, OpenType contains stuff with is > required for state of the art text rendering, non-OpenType is a dead end, > all modern apps work fine with OpenType and need nothing else. I'm with you all the way. @Dee'Kej: David, I saw that the source package for urw-base35-fonts contains afm, otf, t1 and ttf formats. Is there a reason why you left OpenType and TrueType out? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

6 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[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 #5 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> --- (In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #4) > (In reply to Nicolas Mailhot from comment #3) > > I haven't checked texlive lately but unless the fonts are packaged using the > > Fedora packaging template they won't be available in fontconfig for non-tex > > apps such as libreoffice. > > There are no fontconfig.conf (nor metainfo.xml) files and the fonts are > packaged in a number of different formats. > Interestingly, I discovered the texlive-tex-gyre-math package on my system, > which contains nothing but the fonts in otf format plus their license and > these fonts are available in LibreOffice. All the packaging template does is make sure the fonts are in a location fontconfig looks at, aliasing rules are ok, package naming and split is consistent with other Fedora font packages, and fontconfig indexes are refreshed at install time so yes one can do the same as the template piecemeal (though it is much simpler to apply the template to make sure nothing was forgotten as is usually the case). If libreoffice sees the fonts that confirms newer libreoffice expects OpenType only, ie ttf or otf files (which is rather sane in 2017, one can only workaround old legacy incomplete formats so long). So there are two good options: make sure TEX Gyre fonts are well packaged in Fedora, or start a separate project to convert URW fonts to OpenType under GS licensing (and drop the legacy PS1 files) And there is one bad option: convince libreoffice to accept PS1 fonts a bit longer, with the associated bugs and limitations, that no one will know to attribute to the legacy format, that no one will ever fix, and things will continue to slowly rot. I hate when people ship legacy font formats "just because they may be useful for someone", OpenType won a long time ago, OpenType contains stuff with is required for state of the art text rendering, non-OpenType is a dead end, all modern apps work fine with OpenType and need nothing else. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

6 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[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 #4 from Alexander Ploumistos <alex.ploumistos(a)gmail.com> --- (In reply to Nicolas Mailhot from comment #3) > I haven't checked texlive lately but unless the fonts are packaged using the > Fedora packaging template they won't be available in fontconfig for non-tex > apps such as libreoffice. There are no fontconfig.conf (nor metainfo.xml) files and the fonts are packaged in a number of different formats. Interestingly, I discovered the texlive-tex-gyre-math package on my system, which contains nothing but the fonts in otf format plus their license and these fonts are available in LibreOffice. > It does not matter if they are packaged as texlive subpackages or as > independent projects as long as the template is applied. Also, whoever > packages them needs to ship some fontconfig files that aliases the various > past names of the fonts to the new one for backwards compat. Again there are > templates to do so in fontpackages-devel. I seem to have such rules in 30-metric-aliases.conf as well as in the fontconfig files from David's urw-base35 fonts. > Reading > http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/index_html#Licensing > > they got URW to publish the fonts under their own pet license to avoid > dealing with Ghostscript licensing they didn't understood. So as long as > they rebased to that release with no ghostscript import they are ok > legal-wise (do check with spot if you feel like it, though I'm pretty sure > he'd have blocked them from TexLive during its TEX audits if there was still > a problem). > > That sucks if GS added fixes over URW material, but that's how free software > works when projects disagree on licensing. This was on 2016-11-25: "We are on our way to the reconciling both licenses. It takes time, though..." -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

6 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[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 #3 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> --- I haven't checked texlive lately but unless the fonts are packaged using the Fedora packaging template they won't be available in fontconfig for non-tex apps such as libreoffice. It does not matter if they are packaged as texlive subpackages or as independent projects as long as the template is applied. Also, whoever packages them needs to ship some fontconfig files that aliases the various past names of the fonts to the new one for backwards compat. Again there are templates to do so in fontpackages-devel. Reading http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/index_html#Licensing they got URW to publish the fonts under their own pet license to avoid dealing with Ghostscript licensing they didn't understood. So as long as they rebased to that release with no ghostscript import they are ok legal-wise (do check with spot if you feel like it, though I'm pretty sure he'd have blocked them from TexLive during its TEX audits if there was still a problem). That sucks if GS added fixes over URW material, but that's how free software works when projects disagree on licensing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

6 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 September 2017