fonts November 2009

fonts@lists.fedoraproject.org

10 participants
9 discussions

Re: [RFA] Font audit results for Fedora 12 (final)
by Nicolas Mailhot 23 Nov '09

23 Nov '09

Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 13:43 -0500, Neal Becker a écrit : > What does this mean? > > I received one for libotf. Neither libotf, nor libotf-devel seem to > ship any fonts. As explained in the text of the message you're received libotf attempts to access fonts through the core fonts backend which is bad -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

Re: [RFA] Font audit results for Fedora 12 and 2009-11-22 fedora-devel
by Nicolas Mailhot 23 Nov '09

23 Nov '09

Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 12:54 -0600, Jon Ciesla a écrit : > > I question the taste of this remark. Was it really necessary to bring > this up in such a public forum? I guess this just reflect frustration in seing xine-ui adding new copies of the same fonts months after months even though it is explicitely demanded not to in packaging guidelines and it was pointed multiple times whenever the script result were posted to this list this past year. You're right I should not have posted it this way. -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

[RFA] Font audit results for Fedora 12 and 2009-11-22 fedora-devel
by Nicolas Mailhot 23 Nov '09

23 Nov '09

Hi, With a little delay here are the font audit results for Fedora 12 and 2009-11-22 fedora-devel. I think I've taken into account all the feedback I received since last run. More feedback is of course welcome (except for the file size computation, I know it's broken, was not worth re-doing a 7h test run to fix it). Seeing some numbers go down would be nice. Individual packagers should have received their personalized notification some hours ago (some in duplicate, the first relay host I used blacklisted me as a spammer sometime in the middle of the run so I had to restart everything, sorry about that, will try to improve). Some people asked me why I didn't go the bugzilla route: look at the numbers, there's no way I can write a script smart enough to manage hundreds of bugs with different states. And doing it manually alone would be a nightmare. Special mention goes to jussilehtola for xine-ui: not only he managed to add 27 font files not packaged according to Fedora guidelines during the F-12 cycle, but 14 are copies of the same font. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 7

Updated version of the Isabella font
by francis+fedora+fonts＠thibault.org 21 Nov '09

21 Nov '09

FYI, I've just released a minor update to the Isabella font, which improves the characters ł and Ł (the diagonal strokes were too thin). I see that the Fedora package is maintained by lyosnorezel, but I can't find a way to contact him directly, so I'm hoping he's on this list. When you get a chance, lyosnorezel, could you please grab the updated version? http://www.thibault.org/fonts/isabella/ Thanks! -- /================================================================\ | John Stracke | http://www.thibault.org | HTML OK | | François Thibault |-----------------------------------------| | East Kingdom | Speak softly and carry an Illudium Q-32 | | francis(a)thibault.org | Explosive Space Disintegrator. | \================================================================/

1 0

tcpdf fonts
by Oron Peled 16 Nov '09

16 Nov '09

Hi, I packaged TCEXAM (tcexam.org) for review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465159 One of the issues I (and the reviewer) have is that the included TCPDF (tcpdf.org) application is using embedded fonts for rendering the PDF. As a result, I have several questions for the members of this list: 1. From a brief look, it seems the bundled fonts are free and included in Fedora. How about the almohanad and ZarBold, anybody knows? (here is the full list of font-names): almohanad dejavusansmonoi freemonobi dejavusans dejavuserif freemonoi dejavusansb dejavuserifb freesans dejavusansbi dejavuserifbi freesansb dejavusanscondensed dejavuserifcondensed freesansbi dejavusanscondensedb dejavuserifcondensedb freesansi dejavusanscondensedbi dejavuserifcondensedbi freeserif dejavusanscondensedi dejavuserifcondensedi freeserifb dejavusansi dejavuserifi freeserifbi dejavusansmono freemono freeserifi dejavusansmonob freemonob ZarBold dejavusansmonobi 2. Better substitutes? Defaults? 3. For use by tcpdf, the fonts are converted as described in: http://www.tecnick.com/public/code/cp_dpage.php?aiocp_dp=tcpdf_fonts a. One tools which is bundled is afm2pfm (and its inverse pfm2afm): * The upstream of these tools: - http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/fonts/utilities/pfm2afm/ - It is GPL - Very old code, does not look maintained, but small. * Are these tools of general interest for the font people? Should we invest the time to clean up the code, etc? * If we do not want/need them, what is the alternative method for generating afm files from ttf fonts in Fedora. Can this method be scripted? b. Another bundled tool is ttf2ufm: * Looks like a modified copy of ttf2pt1 which is packaged in Fedora. * What are the difference? Maybe the current Fedora version includes the functionality of ttf2ufm? * If not, does anybody knows where did it come from? I only found copies of this in TCPDF and in some old netscape sources. * If packaging it is problematic, can the same task be done by other tools packaged in Fedora? 4. While doing a search for this mail I found that moodle (packaged in Fedora) bundles TCPDF (and the fonts). So it seems we have a common problem... I will try to contact the maintainer. Thank you for your time, -- Oron Peled Voice: +972-4-8228492 oron(a)actcom.co.il http://users.actcom.co.il/~oron "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Gandhi

2 2

Fwd: Broken dependencies: wqy-zenhei-fonts
by Qianqian Fang 14 Nov '09

14 Nov '09

hi I received "broken dependencies" warnings from build robot for all 3 wqy fonts. I am wondering if this needs me to do anything to fix. I used the spec template for single font for these packages. I don't see "sh" explicitly called in the spec file. Please let me know. thanks. Qianqian ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <buildsys(a)fedoraproject.org> Date: Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 9:51 AM Subject: Broken dependencies: wqy-zenhei-fonts To: wqy-zenhei-fonts-owner(a)fedoraproject.org wqy-zenhei-fonts has broken dependencies in the development tree: On ppc: wqy-zenhei-fonts-0.8.38-3.fc12.noarch requires /bin/sh wqy-zenhei-fonts-0.8.38-3.fc12.noarch requires /bin/sh On ppc64: wqy-zenhei-fonts-0.8.38-3.fc12.noarch requires /bin/sh wqy-zenhei-fonts-0.8.38-3.fc12.noarch requires /bin/sh Please resolve this as soon as possible.

2 2

Two new packaged fonts
by TK009 12 Nov '09

12 Nov '09

ns-tiza-chalk-fonts and ns-bola-fonts have been packaged =). https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/NS_Tiza_fonts https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/NS_Bola_fonts Thank you Mairin for highlighting these fonts and thank you Nicolas for your help in getting them packaged. TK009

1 0

M+ fonts
by Igshaan Mesias 10 Nov '09

10 Nov '09

Hi, I have packaged M+ family of fonts. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/M%2B_fonts You can find the review request here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=533919 Be gentle, -- Igshaan Mesias <igshaan.mesias(a)gmail.com>

4 8

Rpmlint does not like my license
by Igshaan Mesias 09 Nov '09

09 Nov '09

Hi Everyone I've packaged the M+ collection of fonts. I've not yet submitted a review because I am unsure about what to label the 'License' tag in spec file given its authors have simply put the license as follows: http://mplus-fonts.sourceforge.jp/mplus-outline-fonts/index-en.html#license "These fonts are free softwares. Unlimited permission is granted to use, copy, and distribute it, with or without modification, either commercially and noncommercially. THESE FONTS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY." The following page notes the license as being "mplus", however, rpmlint will not like this, so my question is, should I leave the 'License' tag in the spec file as Mplus and let rpmlint moan, or do I change to something it likes? if so what do I change it to? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Fonts -- Igshaan Mesias <igshaan.mesias(a)gmail.com>

3 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts November 2009