fonts August 2013

fonts@lists.fedoraproject.org

10 participants
10 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

Re: fonts Digest, Vol 68, Issue 5
by Fabian Greffrath 29 Aug '13

29 Aug '13

Am Freitag, den 23.08.2013, 12:00 +0000 schrieb fonts-request(a)lists.fedoraproject.org: > Just done upstream release of liberation-fonts 1,07.3. Improved > serbian > locale support in it and also fix couple of other bugs. See changelog > for > more details. It appears that this release is missing the patch for RH#715309: "hinting problem of Liberation Sans Bold character 'u' at particular point size" that was included in previous releases. - Fabian

2 2

introducing ttname, the CLI font metadata editor
by T.C. Hollingsworth 29 Aug '13

29 Aug '13

Hi Fedora font folks! To make complying with the new licensing requirements [1] easier, I've written a little tool that allows you to quickly edit the "name" table of OpenType fonts from a shell. This makes inserting the contents of a license to a ttf file that is missing it in a spec file as easy as something like: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BuildRequires: ttname %prep %setup -q ttname -a --copyright=$(head -n2 LICENSE) --license=$(<LICENSE) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's already available in Rawhide and F20 and you can install it from updates- testing in F19 and F18: sudo yum --enablerepo=updates-testing install ttname I've also filed buildroot overrides so it's immediately useful during builds as well. I was disheartened to find that there was nothing like this already in existence, so I tried to make it generally useful to the free font community. It supports all the well known fields in the name table and can fill in the undefined ones too if you give it the numerical IDs. Let me know if you find it useful for other stuff, or if there's anything that helpful I could add. (For instance, it seems like there are a couple fields in the "head" table that would be nice to support too, but I'm not sure.) I'm going to be announcing the list of packages that have fonts that are missing metadata soon. Thanks! -T.C.

2 2

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets
by Nicolas Mailhot 28 Aug '13

28 Aug '13

Le Mar 6 août 2013 23:48, T.C. Hollingsworth a écrit : > There's already some example instructions on how to use ttname here, > which accurately reflects the CLI interface as it is now implemented: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Patches/ttname also please keep the fonts list in CC when discussing changes to fonts packaging in Fedora Thank's for working on this! -- Nicolas Mailhot

3 2

Fonts with default Fedora installation
by pravin.d.s＠gmail.com 27 Aug '13

27 Aug '13

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] Just done editing of comps file and my question is out of these script fonts how many we suppose to install by default. Presently we are following like at least one fonts for each script should be available with default installation, so if anyone while browsing web etc can get correct rendering for his script. But here issue is supporting whole Unicode with default installation will be too much. Might be we should only install fonts for BMP of Unicode and lets have other fonts installed by users when required (we do have feature in Fedora where if any fonts are not installed by default fontconfig search for particular script fonts.) I have done comps editing by keeping above thing in mind. If anyone have other suggestion please let me know. Best Regards, Pravin Satpute 1. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/google-noto-fonts 2. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=456970

3 5

Released liberation fonts 1.07.3
by pravin.d.s＠gmail.com 23 Aug '13

23 Aug '13

Hi All, Just done upstream release of liberation-fonts 1,07.3. Improved serbian locale support in it and also fix couple of other bugs. See changelog for more details. As usual one can download it from https://fedorahosted.org/liberation-fonts So presently in upstream we are maintaining liberation 1.07 and 2.00 two different version. Version 2.00 also facing some hinting related issues. So looking forward to improve liberation 2.00 version. In meanwhile i am thinking to make liberation 2.00 available in Fedora, so if someone prefers glyph coverage over better hinting bytecode he can get liberation 2.00. Thanks & Regards, Pravin Satpute

1 0

Project: Creating standard and reusable Open type tables for Indian script fonts
by pravin.d.s＠gmail.com 22 Aug '13

22 Aug '13

Hi All, More information regarding project is available at http://pravin-s.blogspot.in/2013/08/project-creating-standard-and-reusable.… I will be there in FUEL conference on 6th and 7th November. Looking forward to meet active contributors of i18n and have more discussion on this project. Best Regards, Pravin Satpute

2 3

Q: fedora-review, fonts and %_font_pkg
by Alec Leamas 22 Aug '13

22 Aug '13

There is a bug for fedora review [1] to add some basic support for font packages. It shouldn't be that hard, but time is limited. One concern is that font specfiles are hard to parse because of the %_font_pkg macro. The problem is that it "hides" the %files directive which is what we use to locate the section (that we have to parse ourselves instead of using rpm's parser is a long story). Now, anything is possible. But according to the discussion in [2], fpc nowadays seems very firm about that macros should not include any section parts like %files, so %_font_pkg should most likely not have been approved as-is today (?) So: should the situation be rectified to comply with fpc's view, probably with a new macro not including %files + deprecating %_font_pkg? Not only for fedora-review (which will have to handle %_font_pkg anyway), but for consistency? --alec [1] https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ticket/215 [2] https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/194

2 3

f19 default font list
by Akira TAGOH 21 Aug '13

21 Aug '13

Hi, I completely forgot to run a script to generate the default font list for f19. please check this out: http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/fonts/f19-defaultfonts.html --- Akira TAGOH

1 0

Re: Error monitoring 'sil-scheherazade-fonts' with Upstream Release Monitoring
by Paul Flo Williams 09 Aug '13

09 Aug '13

upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org wrote: > Your Fedora package 'sil-scheherazade-fonts' is monitored by Upstream > Release > Monitoring (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring), > but no > upstream version can be found. The error message is: > ERROR:cnucnu:Failed to fetch upstream information for package > 'sil-scheherazade-fonts' (sil-scheherazade-fonts: no upstream version > found. - http://scripts.sil.org/ArabicFonts_Download - > \bScheherazadeRegOT[-_](?i)(?:(?:src|source)[-_])?([^-/_\s]*?\d[^-/_\s]*?)(?:[-_.](?:src|source|orig))?\.(?:tar|t[bglx]z|tbz2|zip)\b) > > Please adjust the entry for your package at: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring#List_Of_Packages I changed the entries for Lateef and Scheherazade this morning on the wiki, following these notifications, and Lateef now works, but Scheherazade still seems to be wrong. It's not that obvious to me where Scheherazade's custom regex comes from. I'll have a go at correcting it after the weekend unless someone else gets there first! -- Paul Flo Williams http://hisdeedsaredust.com

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts August 2013