fonts October 2013

fonts@lists.fedoraproject.org

5 participants
3 discussions

current state and future of liberation-fonts
by Fabian Greffrath 27 Jan '14

27 Jan '14

[Sorry for the re-post, I did not know had to subscribe to the Fedora list.] Hello Pravin Satpute et al., I am one of the maintainers of the liberation-fonts package in Debian (it is called fonts-liberation there [1]) and I am a bit concerned about the current state of development and the future of these fonts. I have read that the new release 2.00.1 based on Google Crosscore fonts has been defered from Fedora 18 because of rendering regressions [2]. However, since then development has apparently stopped in the GIT repository [3]. Have these rendering regressions been identified? Are they going to get addressed in the fonts or in other parts of the font rendering stack? Will there be another release of the liberation-fonts in the short term or have these fonts been defered altogether in favor of another font family? Thanks for your replies, - Fabian [1] http://packages.qa.debian.org/f/fonts-liberation.html [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885596 [3] https://git.fedorahosted.org/git/liberation-fonts.git

3 11

Help required for the application installer
by Richard Hughes 26 Oct '13

26 Oct '13

Hi all, I'm one of the main developers of gnome-software, which is an application and addon installer which we're installing as a tech preview in Fedora 20. In F20 the fonts are listed individually, with untranslated names direct from the font itself. That means we get several hundred "fonts" with no proper short descriptions, and the names are less than ideal. For example: "mnml icons", "M+ 1c black", "Droid Sans Fallback" So, for Fedora 21 we're working more towards a mockup like https://raw.github.com/gnome-design-team/gnome-mockups/master/software/vers… -- don't worry too much about the glyph images in that screenshot, the basic point I want to get across is that rather than showing "lato-black-regular, lato-black-italic, lato-thin-regular, lato-thin-italic" as separate fonts, we want to show "Lato" as a _single_ addon, with 3 fonts (black, thin, regular) each with separate styles (bold, italic, etc). This means I need some extra metadata, and some translated descriptions. This is where you kind people come in. I've setup a spreadsheet with 4 columns here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtzJKpbiGX1zdC05ZlA0dEZTQmYyaF… * The ID is what gnome-software uses internally, don't read too much into the format. * The "Parent" is supposed to be the parent font name, so for instance, "Lato Thin" and "Lato Black" would both have the parent of "Lato" * The "Name" is currently set at what the font provides us with, and we can tweak this if requires, for instance "roadstencil" can become "Road Stencil" * The "Summary" is a one line description of the font, for instance "Lato is a sanserif typeface family". You only need one description per parent. * The "Description" is a 2-3 paragraph description of the font, which is optional as it's not currently shown in the mockup. It's included here for completeness as it could be shown in the future when the user clicks "More info". I would be very grateful of any help, as all of you know two order of magnitude more about fonts than me. If you also have any comments about the UI mockups, either reply to this email, or ping me, jimmac or aday in #gnome-design on GIMPNet. I've filled in a few details on the spreadsheet[1] already, but feel free to change what I've already done if it's wrong. Thanks, Richard [1] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtzJKpbiGX1zdC05ZlA0dEZTQmYyaF…

4 7

Re: Fonts with default Fedora installation
by pravin.d.s＠gmail.com 03 Oct '13

03 Oct '13

On 3 October 2013 16:34, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2013-08-26 at 17:15 +0530, pravin.d.s(a)gmail.com wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > Recently i done packaging of google-noto-fonts [1] for Fedora. With > > this font we got number of new script fonts of Unicode which were not > > available earlier. [2] > > Sorry to pick old emails, I have a devel@ backlog currently. > > Just a plea to please be very conservative introducing new packages (and > hence extra size) to the default set, as both the DVD and desktop live > images are currently (Alpha, and Beta TC1) oversize and need trimming. I > think we should aim to have sufficient font coverage for all practical > out-of-the-box Fedora usage, but try and do so as efficiently as > possible, at least as long as we're sticking to current image size > targets. Thanks! > Yes, do agree with. <packagereq type="default">google-noto-sans-lisu-fonts</packagereq> -> 12K <packagereq type="default">google-noto-sans-mandaic-fonts</packagereq> -> 20K <packagereq type="default">google-noto-sans-meeteimayek-fonts</packagereq> -> 20K <packagereq type="default">google-noto-sans-tagalog-fonts</packagereq> -> 16K <packagereq type="default">google-noto-sans-tai-tham-fonts</packagereq> -> 36K <packagereq type="default">google-noto-sans-tai-viet-fonts</packagereq> -> 20K Above are the packages added to default install list of Fedora from google-noto-fonts, i believe these are important and we don't have substitute for them in existing default fonts list packages. Regards, Pravin Satpute

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts October 2013