fonts April 2010

fonts@lists.fedoraproject.org

9 participants
9 discussions

Help packaging font.
by Rene Ribaud 01 May '10

01 May '10

Hello, I'm pretty new on this list so let me quickly introduce myself, my name is René Ribaud, I live in the south east of France in the Alps. I work in computer science (Unix/Linux/storage) for a big computing company. I have used Fedora for several years and I would like to bring my small contribution to this project by packaging software. I would like to package the KanjiStrokeOrder font provide here : http://sites.google.com/site/nihilistorguk/ However despite I have read documentation on the Fedora wiki, I still have some doubts or questions. That's the reason why I'm writing on this list. Most of my questions are related to fontconfig. I have read this : "You should always consider adding fontconfig tuning to your font packages." and this is the beginning of my problems. :) So I have written the simple, minimal fontconfig file provided below : /<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM "../fonts.dtd"> <fontconfig> <alias> <family>KanjiStrokeOrders</family> <default> <family>sans-serif</family> </default> </alias> </fontconfig> / And I choose the lowest priority font prefix 69, to not overwrite any font settings and also because the definition "Fonts with less common encodings, ending with fonts that provide coverage of exotic unicode blocks at the expense of drawing quality" seems to be good for this font. So I wonder : - If the fontconfig file is fine or need more information inside ? - If the prefix is the good one and maybe more rules to select it ? All advises regarding these points will be welcomed. I also provide the following links, this is not for a review, I will ask for one later. But it may be interesting for you. SPEC : http://uggla.free.fr/rpmbuild/SPECS/kanjistrokeorders-fonts.spec SRPM : http://uggla.free.fr/rpmbuild/SRPMS/12/kanjistrokeorders-fonts-2.014-2.fc12… Best regards. René

2 2

trimming fonts from kde live
by Rex Dieter 30 Apr '10

30 Apr '10

it's crunch time for f13, and our kde live images have grown a bit over the past month due mostly to incremental growth of dependencies. So, the kde-sig in the unfortunate position of working to trim space to make it cd-sized again. We've historically made no qualms about admitting that the kde live spin is (largely) english only. One option we're considering including only wqy-microhei-fonts (a compact font with apparently fairly good coverage) and trimming all other CJK fonts. We estimate this will go a long way to help our size problems. Would doing something like this be agreeable? Any other comments or advice? -- Rex

1 0

Poor state of my font packages
by Mathieu Bridon 28 Apr '10

28 Apr '10

Hi, Some time ago, I took over two font packages as they were important to the fedora-olpc project and their original maintainer was orphaning them. The first one has been in need of some love for quite some time: nafees-web-naskh-fonts. A bug has been reported more than a year ago, and until now I have failed to fix it properly. This is partly due to my lack of knowledge about fonts, but mostly because of my lack of time to acquire that knowledge. Also, very recently, a bug has been opened against sil-abyssinica-fonts, and I fear the same is going to happen: it shouldn't be too hard to fix for someone who knows how to do it, but I'd need some time to learn this stuff and I'm likely not to have the time to commit to it, resulting in a package of poor quality. I realize I've been a crappy maintainer for these packages, and I'm confident they would be in much better hands if I orphaned them. Would someone be interested in taking over them? Here are the open bugs against those two: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugs/nafees-web-naskh-fonts https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/bugs/sil-abyssinica-fonts If no one is willing to maintain them, even some help with fixing those two issues would be greatly apreciated. I won't orphan them if no one steps up as they are required for displaying some languages which seem to be important for OLPC, but I hope a better maintainer will appear. Regards, ---------- Mathieu Bridon

1 0

Subpackages for single variants of a family?
by Paul Flo Williams 19 Apr '10

19 Apr '10

I've been looking at packaging Cathy Davies' Chemist fonts, as requested here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CDavies_Chemist_fonts Rather than start from a version on one of the free font sites, I thought I'd go back to the original source. Nice idea, were it not for the fact that Cathy only ever issued this in Mac-specific StuffIt format, for which no free decoders are available. Fortunately, the non-free expander is quite cheap, so I now know that the original source for these fonts contains: * 3 Type 1 fonts - "Chemist", "Chemist Rough" and "Chemist Periodic" * associated FOND resources, containing kerning information * README These fonts are released to the public domain, but the README requests that all three fonts are distributed together, which the conversions on free font sites are clearly not doing. In order to make these packagable while respecting the README, I am proposing to release a new archive (ZIP, say) of the original SIT file, containing OTF conversions of all three fonts, plus the original README, and possibly the original Type 1s and FONDs, so the conversion could be improved in future if anyone wanted to. Each of the fonts is a single variant of a separate family which, by my reading of Fedora's font packaging rules, means that I should produce three subpackages from this single source. Would it be acceptable to produce a single binary RPM from this single source, given that there are only three fonts in total? I really can't imagine why anyone who wanted to install one of these fonts wouldn't want to have all three.

1 0

compare="contains" issue
by Akira TAGOH 19 Apr '10

19 Apr '10

Hi, I'd propose not using compare="contains" as far as possible, especially must not when scripts are unififed/shared in some languages. Here is an example that messed up with it: $ rpm -q vlgothic-fonts vlgothic-fonts-20100126-2.fc13.noarch $ FC_DEBUG=4 fc-match sans:lang=zh-cn ... FcConfigSubstitute Pattern has 2 elts (size 16) family: "sans"(s) lang: zh-cn(s) ... FcConfigSubstitute test pattern any lang Contains "ja" FcConfigSubstitute test pattern any family Equal "sans-serif" Substitute match pattern any lang Contains "ja" pattern any family Equal "sans-serif" edit Edit family Prepend "VL Gothic"; ... So in this case fontconfig says "zh-cn" contains "ja" according to the orth file. This may depends on languages. it may works in some case, but not in some case like the above. that would be good however to get rid of it from the config file until fontconfig gets a fix of ll v.s. ll-cc issue. Any comments? -- Akira TAGOH

1 0

Please review another new proposal to improve Chinese fonts choosing in fontconfig.
by Peng Wu 19 Apr '10

19 Apr '10

Dear all, We currently plan to improve Chinese fonts on Fedora 13. Last time we post a mail on fonts and i18n mailing list, as fangqq proposed a suggestion on this. But after collecting various feedbacks from users, at fedora-i18n meeting, a new proposal is created to replace the previous one. And after recollect these feedbacks, it seems the new proposal is accepted by most users.(Discussion thread in Chinese:http://groups.google.com/group/fedora-cn/browse_thread/thread/61709…) Please review this new proposal, thanks. The goal of this new proposal is to let Simpilified Chinese (SC) and Traditional Chinese (TC) users choose different fonts. SC users choose SC writing style fonts, while TC users choose TC writing style fonts. some Chinese characters with same unicode code point is written with different style in SC and TC. See: http://tetralet.myweb.hinet.net/blog/Font_Compare.png Purpose: To follow the current font policy on Fedora, we consider a new fonts conf for Chinese users in /etc/fonts/conf.d/, as below: 1. When use Simplified Chinese (SC for brief) locale to login Fedora gdm, all default desktop fonts will use WenQuanYi; 2. When use Traditional Chinese (TC for brief) locale to login Fedora gdm, all default desktop fonts will use UMing. For more details and some other info please read on http://pwu.fedorapeople.org/fonts-conf/README.en and http://pwu.fedorapeople.org/fonts-conf. Needed Changes for this proposal: For UMing/UKai, I removed the following fontconfig confs to avoid conflicts with other confs and do some clean up on this: 35-ttf-arphic-ukai-aliases.conf 35-ttf-arphic-uming-aliases.conf 41-ttf-arphic-ukai.conf 41-ttf-arphic-uming.conf 75-ttf-arphic-ukai-select.conf are removed. and a updated version of 64-ttf-arphic-uming.conf (from http://pwu.fedorapeople.org/fonts-conf/64-ttf-arphic-uming.conf). For wqy-zenhei, some clean up is done on 44-wqy-zenhei.conf (from http://pwu.fedorapeople.org/fonts-conf/44-wqy-zenhei.conf). And 65-wqy-zenhei.conf is renamed to 64-wqy-zenhei.conf, in order to override 65-nonlatin.conf. The new version is from http://pwu.fedorapeople.org/fonts-conf/64-wqy-zenhei.conf. Note: For some unknown reason, the fc-match can't give correct results. But it seems gnome/firefox can choose the right fonts, actually I checked it with : $lsof /usr/share/fonts/*/* Thanks, Peng Wu PS:Please reply to both fedora-fonts and fedora-i18n mailing list.

2 3

Re: Font dependencies and graphical applications
by Nicolas Mailhot 14 Apr '10

14 Apr '10

Le Mer 14 avril 2010 16:40, Jaroslav Reznik a écrit : > It's a little more complicated - it's not only one particular font application > depends but this happens with custom installation. Looks like in this case it > leads to system that does not have any fonts installed at all (as it's handled > by comps group and probably not through RPM deps resolving). So the question > is - how to assure that the system has at least one usable font (with custom > installation)? Really, it's the same this as with other default comps groups. Dependencies are not explicit. If you write a custom kickstart that does not include the default groups, apps will fail. There is nothing inside the packages to make sure you install every bit in default groups. If you create a custom configuration that do not include them (or part of them), you have to be ready for breakage. I suppose we could rename @fonts to @base-fonts to make the point clear to people writing kickstart files (they do not complain when they remove base-x and things go south, but they complain about @fonts), but that would not be so great for other users. Another solution would have the tools that generate kickstarts to add a comment at the start of the file that states the default groups the distro has been tested with. -- Nicolas Mailhot

1 0

Font dependencies and graphical applications
by Roman Rakus 14 Apr '10

14 Apr '10

Hi font guys, I would like to know, which package takes care of font dependencies for graphical applications? For example system-config utilities. They need _some_ font package, but direct dependency on such _some_ font package is not good. There should be some lib package to solve this. There was a bug [1] saying there's no font. It was fixed by adding direct dependency to bitmap-fonts package. But now there is another bug [2] saying it shouldn't directly depend on font package. So, is there any package which can solve this dependency problem? [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433858 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=581916 Please keep me and jreznik in CC. RR

2 1

Liberation font development
by Misha Shnurapet 12 Apr '10

12 Apr '10

Hi. Are Liberation font updates possible? I have an improvement request. Thank you. -- Best regards, Misha Shnurapet

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts April 2010