fonts September 2013

fonts@lists.fedoraproject.org

6 participants
7 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

Self Introduction
by Matt Rose 16 Sep '13

16 Sep '13

My name is Matt Rose, and I added a font to fedora all wrong... I've packaged up adobe-source-code-pro-fonts, a nice monospace font that I've been using in my terminals on Fedora for years now. The font is in Fedora 18 and waiting on bodhi updates for 19 and 20. I should look around the wiki more. This font is on the Fonts wishlist https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Adobe_SourceCodePro_fonts I would like to add it to the comps.xml file, but the wording on the wiki is a little unclear. Can somebody look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007615 and give me a little guidance on how to properly add this to comps.xml, I would greatly appreciate it. -- Matt Rose

2 1

Things improved in fontforge this year.
by pravin.d.s＠gmail.com 16 Sep '13

16 Sep '13

Hi All, Blog mentioning things improved in fontfoge. http://blog.craftingtype.com/post/61363593090/15-things-that-improved-in-fo… Regards, Pravin Satpute

1 0

Getting font information
by pravin.d.s＠gmail.com 10 Sep '13

10 Sep '13

Hi, I am writing python script for getting font information. Presenting i am just gathering fc-scan output and extracting required info. Missing part is Version and License field of OS/2 table. Is there better way? Thanks, Pravin Satpute

2 2

Re: fedora-review: fonts plugin
by Parag Nemade 04 Sep '13

04 Sep '13

Hi, On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2013-09-04 06:07, Parag N(पराग़) wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com>wrote: > >> On 2013-09-03 10:59, Parag N(पराग़) wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> On 2013-09-03 06:38, Parag N(पराग़) wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> I have added a provisionary fonts plugin to fedora-review. It's >>>> available in the devel version, see [1]. >>>> >>>> f-r is now early in the 0.5.1 cycle. To be successful, this plugin >>>> needs to be tested by people understanding fonts. I'm certainly no such a >>>> person, so I would very much appreciate any kind of feedback on this >>>> plugin. In this list, in the upstream trac instance[2] or bugzilla; >>>> anything is fine. The upstream bugtracker is preferred, though. >>>> >>>> >>> Can you generate test tarball that I can just use and install to test >>> this new change? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Parag >>> >>> There's instructions on how to use the development version using >>> git in [1]. This is the simplest and most used option IMHO. >>> >>> Also, you can find tarballs and rpms at [2]. Note that the rpm's >>> version number are not upgradeable, new rpms sometimes have 'older' version >>> than the previous so you must use rpm -U --force or similar to use them. >>> Tarballs are run the same way as the git snapshots using >>> ./try-fedora-review, see [1]. >>> >>> >> Thanks for the rpms. >> >> 1) I generally test fedora-review on existing packages as e.g. >> $ fedora-review -rn trabajo-fonts-2.0-1.fc20.src.rpm -m >> fedora-rawhide-x86_64 >> >> I really liked this 5.x.x releases which got more verbose and showing >> Active plugins. I can see for above command fonts plugin is used. But I am >> not sure why I got warning in following log. >> INFO: Downloading (Source0): >> http://openfontlibrary.org/assets/downloads/trabajo/d8bc760f033341f410d8b1e… >> INFO: Using local file trabajo-fonts-fontconfig.conf as Source1 >> WARNING: Package trabajo-fonts-2.0-1.fc19 not built >> INFO: Running checks and generating report >> INFO: Results and/or logs in: >> /home/parag/gitvcs/trabajo-fonts/master/trabajo-fonts/results >> INFO: Build completed >> >> Tested with other font package and got following warning for that >> package >> WARNING: Package lohit-devanagari-fonts-2.5.3-2.fc19 not built >> >> 2) I think its good to have results from repo-font-audit to be stored >> in fonts directory and not in parent directory of fedora-review command >> output. >> >> >> You mean s single directory like repo-font-audit and the results in >> there? >> >> >> 3) both the packages I used fedora-review command, its review.txt showed >> Rpmlint (installed packages) >> ---------------------------- >> Cannot parse rpmlint output: >> >> >> Requires >> -------- >> >> >> Provides >> -------- >> >> this looks failed to provide output. >> >> 4) for fedora-review of culmus-fonts-0.130-3.fc20.src.rpm, I got >> following >> ERROR: 'More than one %_font_pkg macro found' (logs in >> /home/parag/.cache/fedora-review.log) >> >> The macro %_font_pkg more than one is expected as this srpm creates >> many subpackages with each subpackage needs its own %_font_pkg macro. >> >> Regards, >> Parag >> >> Hi! >> >> >> This actually revealed some internal bugs in fedora-review. I have pushed >> some commits taking care of this, and now at least these two examples runs >> cleanly, (besides the subdir for repo-font-audit results). Would appreciate >> some further tests... >> >> >> > Thanks for the update. I can see now above reported issues are fixed > except generating a new directory for repo-font-audit command. I will > request if there are some extra files getting generated using fedora-review > as part of enabling some plugin then good to use that plugin name as a > directory and store those generated files under that directory. > > Regards, > Parag. > > Yes, a directory named after the plugin (or at least prefixed with the > plugin name) is the proper solution. Fixed in new commit. > Thanks, I can see fonts directory now. > > Thanks for all help, looking forward to hear about more exotic failures > over time :) BTW, the nightly rpms should now have a clean upgrade path. > > Yes I saw that and I need to bump the release tag to get it updated locally but I see this problem has gone now with updated nightly srpm. Regards, Parag.

1 0

Re: fedora-review: fonts plugin
by Parag Nemade 03 Sep '13

03 Sep '13

Hi, On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2013-09-03 10:59, Parag N(पराग़) wrote: > > Hi, > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com>wrote: > >> On 2013-09-03 06:38, Parag N(पराग़) wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:55 PM, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> I have added a provisionary fonts plugin to fedora-review. It's >>> available in the devel version, see [1]. >>> >>> f-r is now early in the 0.5.1 cycle. To be successful, this plugin >>> needs to be tested by people understanding fonts. I'm certainly no such a >>> person, so I would very much appreciate any kind of feedback on this >>> plugin. In this list, in the upstream trac instance[2] or bugzilla; >>> anything is fine. The upstream bugtracker is preferred, though. >>> >>> >> Can you generate test tarball that I can just use and install to test >> this new change? >> >> Regards, >> Parag >> >> There's instructions on how to use the development version using git >> in [1]. This is the simplest and most used option IMHO. >> >> Also, you can find tarballs and rpms at [2]. Note that the rpm's >> version number are not upgradeable, new rpms sometimes have 'older' version >> than the previous so you must use rpm -U --force or similar to use them. >> Tarballs are run the same way as the git snapshots using >> ./try-fedora-review, see [1]. >> >> > Thanks for the rpms. > > 1) I generally test fedora-review on existing packages as e.g. > $ fedora-review -rn trabajo-fonts-2.0-1.fc20.src.rpm -m > fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > > I really liked this 5.x.x releases which got more verbose and showing > Active plugins. I can see for above command fonts plugin is used. But I am > not sure why I got warning in following log. > INFO: Downloading (Source0): > http://openfontlibrary.org/assets/downloads/trabajo/d8bc760f033341f410d8b1e… > INFO: Using local file trabajo-fonts-fontconfig.conf as Source1 > WARNING: Package trabajo-fonts-2.0-1.fc19 not built > INFO: Running checks and generating report > INFO: Results and/or logs in: > /home/parag/gitvcs/trabajo-fonts/master/trabajo-fonts/results > INFO: Build completed > > Tested with other font package and got following warning for that package > WARNING: Package lohit-devanagari-fonts-2.5.3-2.fc19 not built > > 2) I think its good to have results from repo-font-audit to be stored in > fonts directory and not in parent directory of fedora-review command output. > > > You mean s single directory like repo-font-audit and the results in > there? > > > 3) both the packages I used fedora-review command, its review.txt showed > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > Cannot parse rpmlint output: > > > Requires > -------- > > > Provides > -------- > > this looks failed to provide output. > > 4) for fedora-review of culmus-fonts-0.130-3.fc20.src.rpm, I got > following > ERROR: 'More than one %_font_pkg macro found' (logs in > /home/parag/.cache/fedora-review.log) > > The macro %_font_pkg more than one is expected as this srpm creates many > subpackages with each subpackage needs its own %_font_pkg macro. > > Regards, > Parag > > Hi! > > > This actually revealed some internal bugs in fedora-review. I have pushed > some commits taking care of this, and now at least these two examples runs > cleanly, (besides the subdir for repo-font-audit results). Would appreciate > some further tests... > > > Thanks for the update. I can see now above reported issues are fixed except generating a new directory for repo-font-audit command. I will request if there are some extra files getting generated using fedora-review as part of enabling some plugin then good to use that plugin name as a directory and store those generated files under that directory. Regards, Parag.

1 0

fedora-review: fonts plugin
by Alec Leamas 02 Sep '13

02 Sep '13

I have added a provisionary fonts plugin to fedora-review. It's available in the devel version, see [1]. f-r is now early in the 0.5.1 cycle. To be successful, this plugin needs to be tested by people understanding fonts. I'm certainly no such a person, so I would very much appreciate any kind of feedback on this plugin. In this list, in the upstream trac instance[2] or bugzilla; anything is fine. The upstream bugtracker is preferred, though. --alec [1] https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/UseDevelopmentVersion [2] https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki Annex: plugin layout ================ The plugin is simple: one python core and two shellscripts. plugins/fonts.py basically just identifies a font package. A font package is a package with a name ending in '-fonts'. Period. scripts/fonts-repo-audit.sh plugin runs repo-fonts-audit on the reviewed package. scripts/fonts-disable.sh disables some checks which makes no sense for font packages. Note that the shellscripts are sort of simple :)

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts September 2013