From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 00:06:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:06:52 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 302151] Tracker bug for font-related problems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711010006.lA106qsQ021816@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Tracker bug for font-related problems Alias: font-problems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=302151 cchance at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |240525 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 00:06:47 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:06:47 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 302151] Tracker bug for font-related problems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711010006.lA106lS3021760@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Tracker bug for font-related problems Alias: font-problems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=302151 cchance at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |251890 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 00:07:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:07:32 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 361101] Italic Liberation Serif produces a weird character instead of an a with a tilde In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711010007.lA107Wo8020856@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Italic Liberation Serif produces a weird character instead of an a with a tilde https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=361101 cchance at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |302151, 304441 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 00:07:32 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:07:32 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 302151] Tracker bug for font-related problems In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711010007.lA107WSP020881@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Tracker bug for font-related problems Alias: font-problems https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=302151 cchance at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |361101 nThis| | -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 00:12:52 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:12:52 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 252149] Digit Zero (0) does not have dot or slash inside In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711010012.lA10Cq1v022748@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Digit Zero (0) does not have dot or slash inside https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=252149 ------- Additional Comments From cchance at redhat.com 2007-10-31 20:12 EST ------- Currently, Liberation Fonts modification is not authorized except by their manufacturer. This bug is tracked by bug# 304441 for prompting to the attention of Ascender. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 00:12:48 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:12:48 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 361101] Italic Liberation Serif produces a weird character instead of an a with a tilde In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711010012.lA10CmmI022721@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Italic Liberation Serif produces a weird character instead of an a with a tilde https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=361101 ------- Additional Comments From cchance at redhat.com 2007-10-31 20:12 EST ------- Currently, Liberation Fonts modification is not authorized except by their manufacturer. This bug is tracked by bug# 304441 for prompting to the attention of Ascender. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 00:50:16 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:50:16 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 346911] Port fontconfig to use NSS library for cryptography In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711010050.lA10oGvZ028608@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Port fontconfig to use NSS library for cryptography https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=346911 ------- Additional Comments From besfahbo at redhat.com 2007-10-31 20:50 EST ------- Hashing: to create a directory name to use for caching contents of a font directory. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 00:50:41 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:50:41 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 360861] sazanami-fonts is installed if Japanese support is excluded In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711010050.lA10of7R027507@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: sazanami-fonts is installed if Japanese support is excluded https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=360861 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |eng-i18n-bugs at redhat.com AssignedTo|tagoh at redhat.com |petersen at redhat.com Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-10-31 20:50 EST ------- Yes, this is intentional, we now install fonts for most languages by default in F8 to have good language coverage. If you really don't want Asian fonts installed from your kickstart file you can explicitly omit them with lines like: -sazanami-fonts-gothic -cjkunifonts-uming -baekmuk-ttf-fonts-gulim etc. Those are the large ones anyway. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 01:13:13 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:13:13 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 360861] fonts for languages installed when not selecting language support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711010113.lA11DDpB030604@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: fonts for languages installed when not selecting language support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=360861 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|sazanami-fonts is installed |fonts for languages |if Japanese support is |installed when not selecting |excluded |language support -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 01:15:17 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:15:17 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 354991] why not dejavu-lgc-fonts 2.20. why redundancy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711010115.lA11FHLS032330@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: why not dejavu-lgc-fonts 2.20. why redundancy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=354991 apodtele at ucsd.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE ------- Additional Comments From apodtele at ucsd.edu 2007-10-31 21:15 EST ------- Fair enough... closing... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 01:18:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:18:11 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 360861] fonts for languages installed when not selecting language support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711010118.lA11IBp2031442@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: fonts for languages installed when not selecting language support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=360861 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-10-31 21:18 EST ------- *** Bug 360781 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 01:18:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:18:36 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 360861] fonts for languages installed when not selecting language support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711010118.lA11IaC4031492@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: fonts for languages installed when not selecting language support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=360861 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-10-31 21:18 EST ------- *** Bug 360801 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 01:18:36 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:18:36 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 360801] baekmuk-ttf-fonts are installed if Korean language is excluded In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711010118.lA11IaFp031472@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: baekmuk-ttf-fonts are installed if Korean language is excluded https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=360801 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-10-31 21:18 EST ------- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 360861 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 01:18:11 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:18:11 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 360781] lohit-fonts-* are installed even if corresponding language is excluded In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711010118.lA11IBG8031421@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: lohit-fonts-* are installed even if corresponding language is excluded https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=360781 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-10-31 21:18 EST ------- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 360861 *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 01:20:19 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:20:19 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 360861] fonts for languages installed when not selecting language support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711010120.lA11KJo9000698@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: fonts for languages installed when not selecting language support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=360861 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-10-31 21:20 EST ------- *** Bug 360871 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 01:19:23 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:19:23 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 360861] fonts for languages installed when not selecting language support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711010119.lA11JNjP032657@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: fonts for languages installed when not selecting language support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=360861 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-10-31 21:19 EST ------- *** Bug 360831 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 01:33:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:33:54 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 360811] jomolhari-fonts is installed if Tibetan language is excluded In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711010133.lA11XsdY002617@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: jomolhari-fonts is installed if Tibetan language is excluded https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=360811 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |eng-i18n-bugs at redhat.com, | |petersen at redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2007-10-31 21:33 EST ------- I think this is also a duplicate of bug 360861. Though I am not sure how many Fedora users really need a Tibetan font by default, so I concede that jomolhari-fonts may be considered a more exotic than most of the other Asian fonts we install now by default. On the other hand some people might misinterpret such a change as political, and so until we have some better guidelines or criteria for fonts defaults I would rather keep things as they are. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 01:35:00 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:35:00 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 360811] jomolhari-fonts is installed if Tibetan language is excluded In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711010135.lA11Z0pn001326@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: jomolhari-fonts is installed if Tibetan language is excluded https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=360811 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|distribution |comps -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 01:38:12 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:38:12 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 360811] jomolhari-fonts is installed if Tibetan language is excluded In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711010138.lA11cCfw001957@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: jomolhari-fonts is installed if Tibetan language is excluded https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=360811 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|petersen at redhat.com |mgarski at post.pl AssignedTo|mgarski at post.pl |petersen at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 01:39:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:39:54 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 360861] fonts for languages installed when not selecting language support In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711010139.lA11dsND003315@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: fonts for languages installed when not selecting language support https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=360861 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|distribution |comps -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 03:44:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:44:14 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 222963] When selecting cjk ttf font on xfontsel, FreeType: couldn't find encoding 'encoding...` In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711010344.lA13iEQC019806@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: When selecting cjk ttf font on xfontsel, FreeType: couldn't find encoding 'encoding...` https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=222963 cchance at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|cchance at redhat.com |besfahbo at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 03:59:50 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 23:59:50 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 222963] When selecting cjk ttf font on xfontsel, FreeType: couldn't find encoding 'encoding...` In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711010359.lA13xocx023684@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: When selecting cjk ttf font on xfontsel, FreeType: couldn't find encoding 'encoding...` https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=222963 sangu at hellocity.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG Flag|needinfo?(sangu at hellocity.ne| |t) | ------- Additional Comments From sangu at hellocity.net 2007-10-31 23:59 EST ------- I referred xfontsel for setting font of emacs-22.1. Then, because of using emacs-unicode-2 recent, xfontsel is needless in my linux life. hmm, Closed? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org Thu Nov 1 04:01:28 2007 From: bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org (bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 21:01:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 12939] API for querying languages and their charsets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20071101040128.5118C13000C@annarchy.freedesktop.org> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12939 freedesktop at behdad.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |12917 nThis| | ------- Comment #7 from freedesktop at behdad.org 2007-10-31 21:06 PST ------- Should be ready to go in. Renamed FcCharSetForLang() to FcLangGetCharSet() and pushed to my repo. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.freedesktop.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 09:55:58 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 05:55:58 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 360901] Smaller fonts in X in F8T3 after login In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711010955.lA19tw7O007980@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Smaller fonts in X in F8T3 after login https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=360901 mcrha at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |NEW Flag|needinfo?(mcrha at redhat.com) | ------- Additional Comments From mcrha at redhat.com 2007-11-01 05:55 EST ------- I'm not sure if I see here any advice, even that explanation makes sense to me. Nevertheless, my installation was fresh installation, no special settings has been taken from previous installation, at least I don't know about any, except of some particular things from home folder. When I look at System->Preferences->Look and Feel->Appearance on tab Fonts, then I see there all with size 10 and chosen Best shape. I'm not sure, if I changed here something. In details I see resolution 86 DPI. I'm not sure from the ball 2) if I should change this value to 96 to have same fonts, furthermore I am sure I didn't change it (at least I don't know about it). I can check if I didn't move that settings accidentally, if you can point me where to look into my backup home directory. Thanks in advance. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 10:31:02 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 06:31:02 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 360901] Smaller fonts in X in F8T3 after login In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711011031.lA1AV27R010832@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Smaller fonts in X in F8T3 after login https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=360901 mcepl at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|xgl-maint at redhat.com |krh at redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From mcepl at redhat.com 2007-11-01 06:31 EST ------- OK, thanks for the info. Passing to krh. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 10:55:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 06:55:03 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 361441] Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711011055.lA1At3lZ014366@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=361441 nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 10:57:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 06:57:22 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 361441] Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711011057.lA1AvMuU014585@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=361441 ivazqueznet at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |182235 nThis| | AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |ivazqueznet at gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 11:15:07 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 07:15:07 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 361441] Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711011115.lA1BF7FQ018056@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=361441 ndbecker2 at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ndbecker2 at gmail.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 11:53:38 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 07:53:38 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 361441] Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711011153.lA1BrcFI025404@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=361441 ------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net 2007-11-01 07:53 EST ------- New version: http://nim.fedorapeople.org/stix-fonts.spec http://nim.fedorapeople.org/stix-fonts-0.9-3.fc9.src.rpm (the subpackage summaries were not changed after cut & pasting) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 12:03:03 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 08:03:03 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 361441] Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711011203.lA1C33gb027044@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=361441 nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tcallawa at redhat.com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 12:31:08 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 08:31:08 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 361441] Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711011231.lA1CV8Pe032371@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=361441 rdieter at math.unl.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rdieter at math.unl.edu -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 12:39:53 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 08:39:53 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 361441] Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711011239.lA1CdrxZ030977@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=361441 ------- Additional Comments From ivazqueznet at gmail.com 2007-11-01 08:39 EST ------- stix-fonts-0.9-3.fc7.noarch.rpm: stix-fonts.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog stix-fonts.noarch: W: invalid-license STIX License stix-fonts-0.9-3.fc7.src.rpm: stix-fonts.src: W: invalid-license STIX License stix-fonts-integrals-0.9-3.fc7.noarch.rpm: stix-fonts-integrals.noarch: W: no-documentation stix-fonts-integrals.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog stix-fonts-integrals.noarch: W: invalid-license STIX License stix-fonts-pua-0.9-3.fc7.noarch.rpm: stix-fonts-pua.noarch: W: no-documentation stix-fonts-pua.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog stix-fonts-pua.noarch: W: invalid-license STIX License stix-fonts-sizes-0.9-3.fc7.noarch.rpm: stix-fonts-sizes.noarch: W: no-documentation stix-fonts-sizes.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog stix-fonts-sizes.noarch: W: invalid-license STIX License stix-fonts-variants-0.9-3.fc7.noarch.rpm: stix-fonts-variants.noarch: W: no-documentation stix-fonts-variants.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog stix-fonts-variants.noarch: W: invalid-license STIX License So fix the version and those should be fine. "additional" is misspelled a few times. fontconfig should be used to backfill the glyphs from higher codepoints to lower (not a blocker). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 13:48:27 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 09:48:27 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 361441] Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711011348.lA1DmR90010165@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=361441 ------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net 2007-11-01 09:48 EST ------- > stix-fonts-integrals.noarch: W: invalid-license STIX License ? LEGAL > stix-fonts-variants.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog ? bogus warning, our guidelines authorize putting version inside the changelog entry freetext (3rd format in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs), so rpmlint is wrong > "additional" is misspelled a few times. will fix > fontconfig should be used to backfill the glyphs from higher codepoints to lower (not a blocker). will do fontconfig magic whenever I can corner someone who knows the exact fontconfig syntax to use -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 13:58:30 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 09:58:30 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 361441] Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711011358.lA1DwUn7011969@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=361441 ------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net 2007-11-01 09:58 EST ------- Ok, new version fixing additional, and using the short license ID spot just added to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Fonts/Good http://nim.fedorapeople.org/stix-fonts.spec http://nim.fedorapeople.org/stix-fonts-0.9-4.fc9.src.rpm Should be good now I think -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 14:16:44 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 10:16:44 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 361441] Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711011416.lA1EGiSq017574@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=361441 ivazqueznet at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From ivazqueznet at gmail.com 2007-11-01 10:16 EST ------- Approved. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 14:44:22 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 10:44:22 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 361441] Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711011444.lA1EiMNI020730@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=361441 nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? ------- Additional Comments From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net 2007-11-01 10:44 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: stix-fonts Short Description: STIX scientific and engineering fonts Owners: nim (FAS) Branches: F-8 devel InitialCC: fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com Cvsextras Commits: yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 15:36:14 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 11:36:14 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 361441] Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711011536.lA1FaEdw031145@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=361441 ------- Additional Comments From a.badger at gmail.com 2007-11-01 11:36 EST ------- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Nov 1 15:40:54 2007 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 11:40:54 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] [Bug 361441] Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200711011540.lA1Fes2X032115@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: stix fonts - scientific and engineering fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=361441 a.badger at gmail.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Nov 1 18:28:19 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:28:19 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] Re: Fonts SIG packaging policies validation In-Reply-To: <8041.192.54.193.51.1193225938.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <8041.192.54.193.51.1193225938.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <1193941699.12653.2.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Hi all, Everyone had a week to have his say and complete the files, and I've submitted the pages to FPC for approval http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DraftsTodo Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Nov 1 18:41:20 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:41:20 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] STIX fonts in, Conakry fonts awaiting a packager Message-ID: <1193942480.12653.16.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Hi all, A major free/libre font project, STIX, did its first public release yesterday. It's a huge work ? the project timeline starts in 1995. The result are engineering and scientific fonts: latin + greek + cyrillic + a lot of technical glyphs, in serif. The STIX fonts have been packaged and approved, and should be available as Fedora 8 updates and in Fedora devel. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=5222 Everyone interested please test and report upstream (http://www.stixfonts.org/betafeedback.html). Upstream beta period ends on december, 15 and it will be much harder to request fixes after this date. In other news a new OFL font has been requested by African users and added to ?packaging wishes in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Triaging/Pipeline#wishes Would-be packagers are demanded. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Nov 2 18:03:59 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:03:59 +0100 Subject: Mailing list changes, QA process Message-ID: <1194026639.23492.29.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Hi all, By popular request the automated bug posting has been moved from this list to a separate list: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list Everyone interested in the bug posts, please subscribe to this new list. Also I've finally taken the time to write a very rough QA page: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/QA It needs a lot of loving care by reviewers (you) but it's better than nothing. The very cool (at least I think it's very cool) problem table at the end of the page is filled by CC-ing the new bug list in the various issue trackers we depend on. That means if everyone plays the game and CCs the list when appropriate, we can get an accurate view of our font & text related issues without resorting to tracker bugs, chain-referencing bugzillas, trying to guess if upstream bug reports apply to Fedora, etc Please consider CC-ing the bugs list next time you report a problem. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From behdad at behdad.org Sat Nov 3 00:09:41 2007 From: behdad at behdad.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 20:09:41 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] Fonts spec template validation In-Reply-To: <1193333841.24738.8.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <8041.192.54.193.51.1193225938.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <471FFCBA.3070801@redhat.com> <1193333841.24738.8.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <1194048581.23545.5.camel@behdad.behdad.org> On Thu, 2007-10-25 at 19:37 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > When Vera was added to Fedora years ago the xorg maintainer and desktop > team strongly objected to adding new fonts to the legacy subsystem, and > my own experience is they were right ? fonts that have been used a long > time with the core fonts backend tend to work, new fonts tend to expose > many bugs no one wants to fix anymore. Yes, please no legacy font system crap. My only comment on the SpecTemplate is that with new fontconfig in rawhide, there's no need to force fc-cache anymore. -- behdad http://behdad.org/ "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Nov 3 08:46:29 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 09:46:29 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-fonts-list] Fonts spec template validation In-Reply-To: <1194048581.23545.5.camel@behdad.behdad.org> References: <8041.192.54.193.51.1193225938.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <471FFCBA.3070801@redhat.com> <1193333841.24738.8.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1194048581.23545.5.camel@behdad.behdad.org> Message-ID: <1194079589.31248.1.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le vendredi 02 novembre 2007 ? 20:09 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a ?crit : > Yes, please no legacy font system crap. Documented in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FontsPolicy > My only comment on the SpecTemplate is that with new fontconfig in > rawhide, there's no need to force fc-cache anymore. Added to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FontsSpecTemplate Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Nov 3 10:46:01 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 11:46:01 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: [Fedora-fonts-list] Fonts spec template validation In-Reply-To: <20071103100510.GD2663@free.fr> References: <8041.192.54.193.51.1193225938.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <471FFCBA.3070801@redhat.com> <1193333841.24738.8.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1194048581.23545.5.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1194079589.31248.1.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <20071103100510.GD2663@free.fr> Message-ID: <1194086761.31248.29.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le samedi 03 novembre 2007 ? 11:05 +0100, Patrice Dumas a ?crit : > On Sat, Nov 03, 2007 at 09:46:29AM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > > Le vendredi 02 novembre 2007 ? 20:09 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod a ?crit : > > > > > Yes, please no legacy font system crap. > > > > Documented in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FontsPolicy > > I don't exactly understand the full story, but what is exactly a core > font? Anything that uses the old server-side X backend. I didn't name it, blame XFree86 people ;) > It seems to me that mkfondir and xfs are not really needed > anymore. I have a package (libdockapp) that ships some bitmap fonts. Is > it the same? In this package I have a link in > /etc/X11/fontpath.d/ > linking to the font directory. That's the Core fonts XFDL backend, yes. > Is there an issue with this type of > fonts (called along luxel-ascii-06x09.pcf.gz seg7-ascii-05x07.pcf.gz)? The only "issue" as explained in the policy is the Core Fonts backend is pretty much unmaintained now, and got abandoned by XFree86 developpers because of numerous unfixable problems, so when you feed it new fonts you play with fire. You break something or trigger an old bug you get to keep the pieces because you won't find a lot of people ready to help. I'd have though ?Behdad's reaction was clear (and he's our leading font developer). > I run fc-cache in this package scriptlets, although I am not sure that > it is useful. I find it terrifying that every packager of legacy fonts I've talked with so far has no clue if the directives he puts in his spec actually work or why. It's always blind copy paste of old specs and if you copy enough stuff things sort-of work. Please get together and write guidelines for legacy font packaging (with scriptlets you actually understand). I've wrote it before and write it here again: I have zip interest in legacy fonts. I recognise it's font stuff some Fedora users need, so the Fonts SIG wiki will host any properly-written legacy fonts policy. But I won't write it for you. I've investigated this stuff enough years ago to decide it's a radioactive dead-end, if someone wants to keep risking it more power to him, but that's on his head. The general SIG policy as expressed in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FontsPolicy is that new font packagers should not even consider the legacy backend, people dead-set on using it can (that's why it's a SHOULD NOT not MUST NOT) but we tell them explicitely it's a very bad idea. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Nov 3 11:41:03 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 12:41:03 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-packaging] Re: [Fedora-fonts-list] Fonts spec template validation In-Reply-To: <20071103111349.GE2663@free.fr> References: <8041.192.54.193.51.1193225938.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <471FFCBA.3070801@redhat.com> <1193333841.24738.8.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1194048581.23545.5.camel@behdad.behdad.org> <1194079589.31248.1.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <20071103100510.GD2663@free.fr> <1194086761.31248.29.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <20071103111349.GE2663@free.fr> Message-ID: <1194090063.31248.40.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le samedi 03 novembre 2007 ? 12:13 +0100, Patrice Dumas a ?crit : > > Please get together and write guidelines for legacy font packaging (with > > scriptlets you actually understand). I've wrote it before and write it > > here again: I have zip interest in legacy fonts. I recognise it's font > > I am not asking you to do anything, nor I am asking anything to anybody. > I am well aware that everything in Fedora is volunteer. Well, *I* am asking because having legacy font packagers ask me the same questions all the time is getting old fast. You people chose to package legacy fonts. You get together to write your own policy (or heed the "don't do it" advice of people like Behdad and me). > However, when > there is something unclear or even that seems incorrect in the wiki, > I have to raise the issue. > > > stuff some Fedora users need, so the Fonts SIG wiki will host any > > properly-written legacy fonts policy. But I won't write it for you. I've > > I didn't asked that. I said that because it seems confusing to me to > write things like > mkfontdir, xfs, "cannot find default font 'fixed'", > when it is not of any relevance in the latest fedora version. ?I've tried to add even more keywords so people recognise the thing. It's difficult to point to it when most people do not know the official name, and nicknames vary from one person to the other. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Nov 3 14:54:22 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:54:22 +0100 Subject: Fonts SIG status and todo list Message-ID: <1194101662.4947.4.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Hi all, To help the numerous volunteers who are dying to contribute to the SIG, but wonder what still needs to be done, I've added a todo page to the wiki space: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Todo If you feel you can contribute to one task, just put your name in the driver column. Likewise if you feel I forgot something important the SIG needs to get done, just add an entry to the table. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Nov 3 19:06:02 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2007 20:06:02 +0100 Subject: STIX fonts in, Conakry fonts awaiting a packager In-Reply-To: <1193942480.12653.16.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <1193942480.12653.16.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <1194116763.19318.0.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le jeudi 01 novembre 2007 ? 19:41 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a ?crit : > The STIX fonts have been packaged and approved, and should be available > as Fedora 8 updates and in Fedora devel. > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=5222 By request it just has been pushed to Fedora 7 too > Everyone interested please test and report upstream > (http://www.stixfonts.org/betafeedback.html). Upstream beta period ends > on december, 15 and it will be much harder to request fixes after this > date. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Nov 4 11:09:14 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:09:14 +0100 Subject: Comments from a distribution packager Message-ID: <1194174554.10669.48.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Dear sir, I'm writing to you on behalf of Fedora Linux, where I've just pushed the STIX beta fonts: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=5222 Fedora packages may later be re-used by Red Hat Enterprise Linux, the OLPC project, or others. My comments will therefore mostly focus on the font distribution process, comments on the glyphs themselves will have to wait till the fonts actually reach our users. Anyway, here are the changes that would have made my task easier, and which I hope you'll implement next version (due to the fact every Linux distribution follows the same general model, I expect you'll hear similar remarks from other distributors). 1. Please use a standard license such as SIL's OFL. Standard licenses have already been cross-checked for ambiguities by third parties, are on pre-approved legal department lists, etc. Due to the very short beta period STIX announced we've tentatively approved your custom license so fonts have the time to reach testers before December 15. This approval hinges on our reading of ? 4. as "a. you may add glyphs to our font, b. or delete them, including in the base range, provided you add the following disclaimer". We've since learnt Debian reads this part differently. If the Debian interpretation was confirmed, we'd remove STIX from our repository. We refuse to distribute fonts that forbid modifications. It is very unfortunate such legal problems may prevent a lot of people from being able to check your fonts during your beta period. But nowadays digital redistribution requires getting legalities right. Also license mismatch is a huge impediment to cross-pollinating between free/libre font projects. We strongly advice any project wishing to have its fonts distributed to our users long-term to use a standard license. Our font legal policy is published there: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Legal 2. Please include your license as a .txt file in your release .zip. We'll redistribute your material so our users do not need to go through your web site (indeed the major added value of a distribution is users do not need to comb the internet to assemble a working system). That means our users won't be exposed to your click-through page. We could of course make a copy of your web page and distribute it with the fonts. However that would expose us to unpleasant consequences should you change this page without us noticing. Our policy is therefore to only redistribute license texts included by upstream projects (that's you) in their archive files. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#LicenseText As I suppose you want every STIX user to have easy access to your licensing terms to avoid infringing them, you should add the license itself to your .zip file. 3. Please allow direct download of your font archives without requiring a click-through We have audit scripts that periodically check the archive files we create our packages from are the same as the ones upstream projects released. If a project does not allow direct download of its archive files, those audit scripts can't perform their job. 4. Please use ascending numeric versions only, not strings like "beta" Linux packaging systems perform automated updates of installed components on user systems. To decide if a component needs to be updated, they compare component versions. This only works if versions can be compared by an automated process, following a logical order. I had to rechristen your beta version 0.9. That means the next one will have to be 1.0 or 0.9.1. Such a rechristening is always dangerous since if our versioning significantly diverges from upstream, users can not easily check if Fedora carries the latest upstream version. The contorsions we have to go through in case of non-numeric versioning are described there http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageVersion ?In the future, please make your distributors' life easier and adopt a strictly numeric versioning. 5. Please use usual archive naming conventions Version XX of project foo should be released in a foo-XX.zip (or tar.bz2) archive with a top-level foo-XX directory inside. (We can workaround this but again that's more work to us and not nice) 6. Please use spaces in internal font names Every decent software written in the past years has been tested to work with "Times New Roman". There is no reason to adopt user-hostile names like "STIXGeneral" In a general-purpose distribution context such as ours not impeding the rest of the system takes precedence over the functionality every individual component adds. Font lists are precious screen-estate shared by many applications. If users complain because STIX fills their font lists with ugly names they don't see the need for, we won't mark STIX as a default package. 7. Please simplify your font distribution For that reason I've spun out non-base fonts in optional packages and I don't expect many users to install them. That's a pity because obviously a lot of work went out in those fonts but your current font layout is just too font-list-hungry to be acceptable as-is. (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=23155) Also your readme does not explain clearly what all the size variations are needed for in a scalable fonts world. They seem to require software tailored around STIX to be used by normal users. You may consider playing font name tricks so installing your fonts do not add so many new font names in application font lists. 8. Please provide fontconfig rules Modern *nix systems use fontconfig to determine when one font should be substituted to another. Your complex font layout obviously demands complex substitution rules dumb packagers like me are not going to get right alone. I've written some rules for the Fedora packages http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/devel/stix-fonts/ but they probably do not match what you intended. 9. OTF is still not perfectly supported by popular software like OpenOffice.org (including its math component). I strongly advice you to plead your cause to the project so users can choose STIX confidently in the near future. http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=16032 http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=43029 http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=79878 ?10. On a personal note, I find STIX metrics too small to be used comfortably on a computer screen. Modern computer fonts (and even not-so-modern ones like "Times New Roman") use a fatter more rounded style for this reason. I doubt current stix will ever be a popular browser font for this reason (at least till computer screens improve their pixel density considerably). 11. Since STIXGeneral is mostly a serif font, I suggest you work with free/libre projects like DejaVu (dejavu.sf.net) to complete the scientific symbol coverage of their sans-serif fonts. DejaVu Sans already includes a large scientific glyph coverage and for this reason is a preferred font of our scientific users. Completing the DejaVu Sans font will be easier than creating a new sans-serif font from scratch. Additionally DejaVu Sans is a nice screen font whereas STIXGeneral is not shinning there so far, and the DejaVu project has very successfully engaged distributors like us, these people know what our needs are and how to get widely redistributed. I'm not sure mixing serif and sans-serif symbol in a single font like STIX does will prove popular with users mid-term. I'll stop there, and hope this feedback will help the STIX project to attain its objective of creating good font support for every scientific and engineering user. Your efforts are appreciated. Thanks. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From orion at cora.nwra.com Tue Nov 6 23:41:56 2007 From: orion at cora.nwra.com (Orion Poplawski) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:41:56 -0700 Subject: Looking for help Message-ID: I've acquired a moderately large stable of packages that is starting to consume too much of my time. I'm looking for people interested in either taking over (preferrable) or co-maintaining the freefont -- Free UCS Outline Fonts package. -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion at cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Nov 7 11:45:49 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 12:45:49 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Fontconfig] Announcing Fontconfig 2.4.92 (2.5 RC2) Message-ID: <42824.192.54.193.53.1194435949.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Mer 7 novembre 2007 11:46, Frederic Crozat a ?crit : > for serif and sans-serif, we are favoring DejaVu over Bitstream Vera > (since Vera is not changing anymore, unlike DejaVu which is also > changing for latin glyphs). Should we do the same upstream ? I've pushed upstream (@dejavu) the fontconfig files we use to achieve this effect @fedora. If the fonconfig maintainers stance on Dejavu changed they could be moved to fontconfig. Last time the issue vas discussed there was some opposition to preferring dejavu at the fontconfig level. Also I rather prefer distributed policy in separate files, since that means they're only deployed if the font packages themselves are installed on the system (instead of mucking with .avail symlinks, and trying to manage a centralised policy everyone patches anyway). > Related question : we are favoring free fonts (also because we aren't > enabling patented bytecode interpreter) over MS fonts, by pushing Luxi > and Nimbus over Verdana and Arial (or Andale Mono, Courier New). We're dropping Luxi @fedora since the license forbids modification and you have alternatives with more liberal licenses available nowadays. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Nov 11 22:10:41 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:10:41 +0100 Subject: [Fwd: Identifying text rendering problems] Message-ID: <1194819041.32551.1.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> [Third attempt since it seems not to reach the list at all] -------- Message transf?r? -------- De: Ben Laenen Sujet: Identifying text rendering problems [sorry if you all get this mail two times, Nicolas asked me to resend it because he thought some problems may have occurred with the delivery of my first attempt] Hi all, I've written up a bit of text to help with point 8 on the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Todo page given our experience with DejaVu. Finding out what is causing text rendering issues may be quite hard to describe, especially since we never follow some certain pattern to get to what the problem is with the bugs we get reported with DejaVu. It's usually just experience with what problems are related to certain issues that immediately tells us what's wrong. Furthermore, the variety of possible text rendering problems is very big. Nevertheless, I've tried to compose some summary here describing what could go wrong. Just keep in mind that I've certainly not covered all issues here. I'll only address issues here which one could encounter with normal opentype truetype fonts (ttf). For opentype fonts with CFF outlines (otf) this will probably be somewhat the same, except that all BCI or autohinting issues should be discarded here, and replaced by postscript hinting issues. Bitmap fonts probably have their own issues, I'm not looking at those here. Also, I'm aware Fedora doesn't enable the BCI in FreeType by default, but many users do enable it, so I'm not discarding the issues of BCI hinting here. Most of the bugs reported to us btw relate to bad autohinting, so it's usually the first thing we will test. Final note: I don't take subpixel hinting into account here. It's possible that some issues occur only when subpixel hinting is enabled, but I don't think we ever got reports for those (and I still use an old CRT screen, so I don't use subpixel hinting myself) I would say there are three kind of bug reports we get: 1 a certain glyph looks bad 2 glyphs are placed incorrectly 3 user preference issues so let's see how we handle these. 1. a certain glyph looks bad Caveat: is the user sure he sees the font he reports an error for. Font substitution could be at work and he may look at a completely different font which has a bad glyph. Suppose the shape of a glyph looks bad. Again, there are two categories here: 1.a the shape is just wrong This means the font should be fix the shape. 1.b the glyph looks bad at specific font sizes This is where we try to determine whether the user who reports the error is using the autohinter, or the bytecode interpreter (BCI). We made life a bit easier in DejaVu by adding the glyphs U+F000 and U+F001 in Sans, which show 88 when the BCI isn't used (i.e. he is using the autohinter) and the font pixel size when BCI is enabled. If the user uses the autohinter, it is most likely a autohinter problem and the problem should be reported to FreeType. If the user uses BCI, the font has bad hinting instructions for the glyph and the font needs to fix it. It's also possible that the BCI of the renderer is buggy. In reporting the bug to the font, it's important to tell them the pixel size (not point size, because that's variable on dpi settings). As said before, for DejaVu the U+F000 and U+F001 give the pixel sizes. 1.c a glyph looks too fuzzy compared with other glyph The user probably has BCI enabled and is using a glyph from a font which doesn't have that glyph hinted. Solution: persuade the font authors to hint the specific glyph. 2. glyphs are placed incorrectly Again, many different possible issues here: 2.a bad spacing between glyphs Test out if the spacing is still bad at very big font sizes. If it is: the font probably has bad bearings (space between the glyph outlines and the glyph boundaries) for a specific glyph. The font could also have bad kerning. If the spacing is nice at big font sizes or when it only happens at specific sizes, it's again likely a autohinter or hinting bug. See 1.b 2.b accents are badly placed (for precomposed glyphs) Again, test out for big font sizes have the issue as well. If it looks bad as well then, the font has the accent badly placed in the precomposed glyph. If it looks bad at only specific sizes, the font maybe need to adjust the accent with hinting, or autohinting is placing it incorrectly. Also see 1.b 2.c combining diacritics are badly placed on base glyphs First question to answer: does the user have a renderer which can properly handle anchors (Pango, Qt4) or not. If he doesn't (Qt3 for Latin for example), then there's not much to do, except to convince the people in charge of the renderer to support it (in case of Latin in Qt3 it probably won't happen since new versions of Qt4 handle them). If the renderer can handle anchor placement, some things can be wrong: - The font may have bad anchor placement - The font has no anchors at all (or it has no anchors for that specific base glyph - mark combination (but in that case the renderer should have some fall-back option for default placement. Qt4 has it, Pango IIRC not, but it may have changed by now with Harfbuzz) Other issues which could relate to a renderer problem or a font problem: - Diacritics on wrong part of ligature (could be an anchor issue in the font, or a renderer problem) - "Extreme diacritic testing" (read: not many users do that), i.e. one or more base glyph with a big amount of diacritical marks, or with special marks like CGJ (combining grapheme joiner) (again, could be a anchor issue, but if the font handles normal cases nicely it's likely that the renderer will get confused or isn't build to handle the specific string with CGJ) 3. User preference issues These usually aren't bugs, but do get reported from time to time, so I put this section here anyway. - Font looks fuzzy overall (sometimes reported as: too thick; or sometimes also: fonts are too sharp, usually reported as: too thin): The user should play with hinting settings and preferably enable BCI when he finds the fonts too fuzzy (patent issues aside). The autohinter sometimes doesn't make the glyphs sharp enough. Also, is the font hinted? If not, then he should try to get autohinting enabled only for that font (todo: look up some fonts.conf for that...). When the font isn't fuzzy enough (i.e. too sharp) BCI is probably not something the user wants, and he may want to try out several settings of the autohinter, or no hinting at all. Depending on the platform he uses (KDE, Gnome...), give the user fonts.conf configurations, or direct him to the proper dialogs to get the fonts to the way he likes them best. - Fonts are bitmapped/aliased, which looks bad; or: fonts are bitmapped, and I want them to, but they look very bad. If the user doesn't want bitmapped fonts, it's easy: just enable antialiasing. If he wants bitmapped fonts but they look bad: the amount of fonts made to look nice bitmapped are very few (the old MS corefonts for example, but making fonts like this has the oddity that it will sometimes have bad hinting when antialiasing is enabled), so usually the bad look is to expect. If the user uses one of the corefonts for example and they look bad, he probably makes use of the autohinter, since these fonts will also look nicely as bitmaps only when BCI is enabled. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From benlaenen at gmail.com Sun Nov 11 16:50:26 2007 From: benlaenen at gmail.com (Ben Laenen) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 17:50:26 +0100 Subject: Identifying text rendering problems Message-ID: <200711111750.26604.benlaenen@gmail.com> Hi all, I've written up a bit of text to help with point 8 on the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Todo page given our experience with DejaVu. Finding out what is causing text rendering issues may be quite hard to describe, especially since we never follow some certain pattern to get to what the problem is with the bugs we get reported with DejaVu. It's usually just experience with what problems are related to certain issues that immediately tells us what's wrong. Furthermore, the variety of possible text rendering problems is very big. Nevertheless, I've tried to compose some summary here describing what could go wrong. Just keep in mind that I've certainly not covered all issues here. I'll only address issues here which one could encounter with normal opentype truetype fonts (ttf). For opentype fonts with CFF outlines (otf) this will probably be somewhat the same, except that all BCI or autohinting issues should be discarded here, and replaced by postscript hinting issues. Bitmap fonts probably have their own issues, I'm not looking at those here. Also, I'm aware Fedora doesn't enable the BCI in FreeType by default, but many users do enable it, so I'm not discarding the issues of BCI hinting here. Most of the bugs reported to us btw relate to bad autohinting, so it's usually the first thing we will test. Final note: I don't take subpixel hinting into account here. It's possible that some issues occur only when subpixel hinting is enabled, but I don't think we ever got reports for those (and I still use an old CRT screen, so I don't use subpixel hinting myself) I would say there are three kind of bug reports we get: 1 a certain glyph looks bad 2 glyphs are placed incorrectly 3 user preference issues so let's see how we handle these. 1. a certain glyph looks bad Caveat: is the user sure he sees the font he reports an error for. Font substitution could be at work and he may look at a completely different font which has a bad glyph. Suppose the shape of a glyph looks bad. Again, there are two categories here: 1.a the shape is just wrong This means the font should be fix the shape. 1.b the glyph looks bad at specific font sizes This is where we try to determine whether the user who reports the error is using the autohinter, or the bytecode interpreter (BCI). We made life a bit easier in DejaVu by adding the glyphs U+F000 and U+F001 in Sans, which show 88 when the BCI isn't used (i.e. he is using the autohinter) and the font pixel size when BCI is enabled. If the user uses the autohinter, it is most likely a autohinter problem and the problem should be reported to FreeType. If the user uses BCI, the font has bad hinting instructions for the glyph and the font needs to fix it. It's also possible that the BCI of the renderer is buggy. In reporting the bug to the font, it's important to tell them the pixel size (not point size, because that's variable on dpi settings). As said before, for DejaVu the U+F000 and U+F001 give the pixel sizes. 1.c a glyph looks too fuzzy compared with other glyph The user probably has BCI enabled and is using a glyph from a font which doesn't have that glyph hinted. Solution: persuade the font authors to hint the specific glyph. 2. glyphs are placed incorrectly Again, many different possible issues here: 2.a bad spacing between glyphs Test out if the spacing is still bad at very big font sizes. If it is: the font probably has bad bearings (space between the glyph outlines and the glyph boundaries) for a specific glyph. The font could also have bad kerning. If the spacing is nice at big font sizes or when it only happens at specific sizes, it's again likely a autohinter or hinting bug. See 1.b 2.b accents are badly placed (for precomposed glyphs) Again, test out for big font sizes have the issue as well. If it looks bad as well then, the font has the accent badly placed in the precomposed glyph. If it looks bad at only specific sizes, the font maybe need to adjust the accent with hinting, or autohinting is placing it incorrectly. Also see 1.b 2.c combining diacritics are badly placed on base glyphs First question to answer: does the user have a renderer which can properly handle anchors (Pango, Qt4) or not. If he doesn't (Qt3 for Latin for example), then there's not much to do, except to convince the people in charge of the renderer to support it (in case of Latin in Qt3 it probably won't happen since new versions of Qt4 handle them). If the renderer can handle anchor placement, some things can be wrong: - The font may have bad anchor placement - The font has no anchors at all (or it has no anchors for that specific base glyph - mark combination (but in that case the renderer should have some fall-back option for default placement. Qt4 has it, Pango IIRC not, but it may have changed by now with Harfbuzz) Other issues which could relate to a renderer problem or a font problem: - Diacritics on wrong part of ligature (could be an anchor issue in the font, or a renderer problem) - "Extreme diacritic testing" (read: not many users do that), i.e. one or more base glyph with a big amount of diacritical marks, or with special marks like CGJ (combining grapheme joiner) (again, could be a anchor issue, but if the font handles normal cases nicely it's likely that the renderer will get confused or isn't build to handle the specific string with CGJ) 3. User preference issues These usually aren't bugs, but do get reported from time to time, so I put this section here anyway. - Font looks fuzzy overall (sometimes reported as: too thick; or sometimes also: fonts are too sharp, usually reported as: too thin): The user should play with hinting settings and preferably enable BCI when he finds the fonts too fuzzy (patent issues aside). The autohinter sometimes doesn't make the glyphs sharp enough. Also, is the font hinted? If not, then he should try to get autohinting enabled only for that font (todo: look up some fonts.conf for that...). When the font isn't fuzzy enough (i.e. too sharp) BCI is probably not something the user wants, and he may want to try out several settings of the autohinter, or no hinting at all. Depending on the platform he uses (KDE, Gnome...), give the user fonts.conf configurations, or direct him to the proper dialogs to get the fonts to the way he likes them best. - Fonts are bitmapped/aliased, which looks bad; or: fonts are bitmapped, and I want them to, but they look very bad. If the user doesn't want bitmapped fonts, it's easy: just enable antialiasing. If he wants bitmapped fonts but they look bad: the amount of fonts made to look nice bitmapped are very few (the old MS corefonts for example, but making fonts like this has the oddity that it will sometimes have bad hinting when antialiasing is enabled), so usually the bad look is to expect. If the user uses one of the corefonts for example and they look bad, he probably makes use of the autohinter, since these fonts will also look nicely as bitmaps only when BCI is enabled. From benlaenen at gmail.com Sun Nov 11 22:01:37 2007 From: benlaenen at gmail.com (Ben Laenen) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:01:37 +0100 Subject: Identifying text rendering problems Message-ID: <200711112301.38154.benlaenen@gmail.com> [sorry if you all get this mail two times, Nicolas asked me to resend it because he thought some problems may have occurred with the delivery of my first attempt] Hi all, I've written up a bit of text to help with point 8 on the http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Todo page given our experience with DejaVu. Finding out what is causing text rendering issues may be quite hard to describe, especially since we never follow some certain pattern to get to what the problem is with the bugs we get reported with DejaVu. It's usually just experience with what problems are related to certain issues that immediately tells us what's wrong. Furthermore, the variety of possible text rendering problems is very big. Nevertheless, I've tried to compose some summary here describing what could go wrong. Just keep in mind that I've certainly not covered all issues here. I'll only address issues here which one could encounter with normal opentype truetype fonts (ttf). For opentype fonts with CFF outlines (otf) this will probably be somewhat the same, except that all BCI or autohinting issues should be discarded here, and replaced by postscript hinting issues. Bitmap fonts probably have their own issues, I'm not looking at those here. Also, I'm aware Fedora doesn't enable the BCI in FreeType by default, but many users do enable it, so I'm not discarding the issues of BCI hinting here. Most of the bugs reported to us btw relate to bad autohinting, so it's usually the first thing we will test. Final note: I don't take subpixel hinting into account here. It's possible that some issues occur only when subpixel hinting is enabled, but I don't think we ever got reports for those (and I still use an old CRT screen, so I don't use subpixel hinting myself) I would say there are three kind of bug reports we get: 1 a certain glyph looks bad 2 glyphs are placed incorrectly 3 user preference issues so let's see how we handle these. 1. a certain glyph looks bad Caveat: is the user sure he sees the font he reports an error for. Font substitution could be at work and he may look at a completely different font which has a bad glyph. Suppose the shape of a glyph looks bad. Again, there are two categories here: 1.a the shape is just wrong This means the font should be fix the shape. 1.b the glyph looks bad at specific font sizes This is where we try to determine whether the user who reports the error is using the autohinter, or the bytecode interpreter (BCI). We made life a bit easier in DejaVu by adding the glyphs U+F000 and U+F001 in Sans, which show 88 when the BCI isn't used (i.e. he is using the autohinter) and the font pixel size when BCI is enabled. If the user uses the autohinter, it is most likely a autohinter problem and the problem should be reported to FreeType. If the user uses BCI, the font has bad hinting instructions for the glyph and the font needs to fix it. It's also possible that the BCI of the renderer is buggy. In reporting the bug to the font, it's important to tell them the pixel size (not point size, because that's variable on dpi settings). As said before, for DejaVu the U+F000 and U+F001 give the pixel sizes. 1.c a glyph looks too fuzzy compared with other glyph The user probably has BCI enabled and is using a glyph from a font which doesn't have that glyph hinted. Solution: persuade the font authors to hint the specific glyph. 2. glyphs are placed incorrectly Again, many different possible issues here: 2.a bad spacing between glyphs Test out if the spacing is still bad at very big font sizes. If it is: the font probably has bad bearings (space between the glyph outlines and the glyph boundaries) for a specific glyph. The font could also have bad kerning. If the spacing is nice at big font sizes or when it only happens at specific sizes, it's again likely a autohinter or hinting bug. See 1.b 2.b accents are badly placed (for precomposed glyphs) Again, test out for big font sizes have the issue as well. If it looks bad as well then, the font has the accent badly placed in the precomposed glyph. If it looks bad at only specific sizes, the font maybe need to adjust the accent with hinting, or autohinting is placing it incorrectly. Also see 1.b 2.c combining diacritics are badly placed on base glyphs First question to answer: does the user have a renderer which can properly handle anchors (Pango, Qt4) or not. If he doesn't (Qt3 for Latin for example), then there's not much to do, except to convince the people in charge of the renderer to support it (in case of Latin in Qt3 it probably won't happen since new versions of Qt4 handle them). If the renderer can handle anchor placement, some things can be wrong: - The font may have bad anchor placement - The font has no anchors at all (or it has no anchors for that specific base glyph - mark combination (but in that case the renderer should have some fall-back option for default placement. Qt4 has it, Pango IIRC not, but it may have changed by now with Harfbuzz) Other issues which could relate to a renderer problem or a font problem: - Diacritics on wrong part of ligature (could be an anchor issue in the font, or a renderer problem) - "Extreme diacritic testing" (read: not many users do that), i.e. one or more base glyph with a big amount of diacritical marks, or with special marks like CGJ (combining grapheme joiner) (again, could be a anchor issue, but if the font handles normal cases nicely it's likely that the renderer will get confused or isn't build to handle the specific string with CGJ) 3. User preference issues These usually aren't bugs, but do get reported from time to time, so I put this section here anyway. - Font looks fuzzy overall (sometimes reported as: too thick; or sometimes also: fonts are too sharp, usually reported as: too thin): The user should play with hinting settings and preferably enable BCI when he finds the fonts too fuzzy (patent issues aside). The autohinter sometimes doesn't make the glyphs sharp enough. Also, is the font hinted? If not, then he should try to get autohinting enabled only for that font (todo: look up some fonts.conf for that...). When the font isn't fuzzy enough (i.e. too sharp) BCI is probably not something the user wants, and he may want to try out several settings of the autohinter, or no hinting at all. Depending on the platform he uses (KDE, Gnome...), give the user fonts.conf configurations, or direct him to the proper dialogs to get the fonts to the way he likes them best. - Fonts are bitmapped/aliased, which looks bad; or: fonts are bitmapped, and I want them to, but they look very bad. If the user doesn't want bitmapped fonts, it's easy: just enable antialiasing. If he wants bitmapped fonts but they look bad: the amount of fonts made to look nice bitmapped are very few (the old MS corefonts for example, but making fonts like this has the oddity that it will sometimes have bad hinting when antialiasing is enabled), so usually the bad look is to expect. If the user uses one of the corefonts for example and they look bad, he probably makes use of the autohinter, since these fonts will also look nicely as bitmaps only when BCI is enabled. From dave at lab6.com Mon Nov 12 08:14:10 2007 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:14:10 +0000 Subject: Identifying text rendering problems In-Reply-To: <200711112301.38154.benlaenen@gmail.com> References: <200711112301.38154.benlaenen@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2285a9d20711120014v6d8e13a4t116249bded8340c9@mail.gmail.com> On 11/11/2007, Ben Laenen wrote: > > [sorry if you all get this mail two times, Nicolas asked me to resend it > because he thought some problems may have occurred with the delivery of > my first attempt] No problems here -- Regards, Dave From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Nov 16 21:59:59 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 22:59:59 +0100 Subject: [Fwd: Font issues (mkfontdir & friends not getting run) with F-8] Message-ID: <1195250399.3177.2.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Forwarding to the right list (not that the two example package follow the provisional guidelines on the fontconfig front, and I don't care much about the core font side myself) -------- Message transf?r? -------- De: Hans de Goede Hi On both my F-8 x86_64 live-dvd installation and my (clean) F-8 i386 install dvd installation, not all scriptlets for font-packages have properly run. Taking /etc/X11/fontpath.d/fonts-default (urw-fonts) as example: -On the x86_64 live dvd install, only fonts.scale is present, iow mkfontdir and fc-cache have not been run, even though they are in the scripts: [hans at localhost ~]$ rpm -q --scripts urw-fonts urw-fonts-2.4-1.fc8.noarch postinstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): { umask 133 mkfontscale /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1 || : `which mkfontdir` /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1 || : fc-cache /usr/share/fonts } &> /dev/null || : -On the i386 dvd install, nothing was run, so not only mkfontdir and fc-cache were not run, but also mkfontscale has not been run The strange thing is fontconfig is actually required, so atleast the fc-cache file should have been created. As for the other two not being created, well that is to be expected if the necessary packages are not added to any Requires. Why are these files generated on install anyways, I understand this used to be usefull back in the days when multiple packages would install files under one dir, but isn't it so that most font dirs now only contain fonts from one package? Note that this is not isolated to urw-fonts, ghostscript-fonts for example has the same problem. Regards, Hans -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From behdad at behdad.org Fri Nov 16 22:18:06 2007 From: behdad at behdad.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:18:06 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: Font issues (mkfontdir & friends not getting run) with F-8] In-Reply-To: <1195250399.3177.2.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <1195250399.3177.2.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <1195251486.24535.46.camel@home.behdad.org> On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 22:59 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Forwarding to the right list (not that the two example package follow > the provisional guidelines on the fontconfig front, and I don't care > much about the core font side myself) > > > -------- Message transf?r? -------- > De: Hans de Goede > > Hi > > On both my F-8 x86_64 live-dvd installation and my (clean) F-8 i386 install dvd > installation, not all scriptlets for font-packages have properly run. > > Taking /etc/X11/fontpath.d/fonts-default (urw-fonts) as example: > -On the x86_64 live dvd install, only fonts.scale is present, iow > mkfontdir and fc-cache have not been run, even though they are in the > scripts: > [hans at localhost ~]$ rpm -q --scripts urw-fonts > urw-fonts-2.4-1.fc8.noarch > postinstall scriptlet (using /bin/sh): > { > umask 133 > mkfontscale /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1 || : > `which mkfontdir` /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1 || : > fc-cache /usr/share/fonts > } &> /dev/null || : > > -On the i386 dvd install, nothing was run, so not only mkfontdir and > fc-cache were not run, but also mkfontscale has not been run > > The strange thing is fontconfig is actually required, so atleast the fc-cache > file should have been created. Fontconfig doesn't store cache files in the directory anymore. They go in /var/cache/fontconfig. That's been the case for a while. > As for the other two not being created, well that is to be expected if the > necessary packages are not added to any Requires. > > Why are these files generated on install anyways, I understand this used to be > usefull back in the days when multiple packages would install files under one > dir, but isn't it so that most font dirs now only contain fonts from one package? I don't understand. When are you suggesting they should be generated? > Note that this is not isolated to urw-fonts, ghostscript-fonts for example has > the same problem. > > Regards, > > Hans -- behdad http://behdad.org/ "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Nov 18 20:43:05 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:43:05 +0100 Subject: Review queue/FESCo after the merge In-Reply-To: <20071118094506.5216b37d@redhat.com> References: <12225.192.54.193.53.1195219803.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1195222693.3238.11.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1195226289.3002.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1195226677.3238.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1195227221.3002.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1195227371.3238.47.camel@localhost.localdomain> <473DEA5F.30201@leemhuis.info> <1195247727.29478.6.camel@space-ghost.verbum.private> <474047F4.5000508@leemhuis.info> <20071118094506.5216b37d@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1195418585.26830.18.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le dimanche 18 novembre 2007 ? 09:45 -0500, Jesse Keating a ?crit : > On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 15:11:00 +0100 > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > Results from my work: > > http://www.leemhuis.info/files/fedorarpms/MISC.fdr/proper-fc-cache-calls.diff > > > > @FESCo: so what do do with this? Commit and don't build? The package > > owners should see the commit diff and spot errors if I did any. > > I have no problem with that, so long as the Fonts SIG is happy with the > change. I stated when I started the SIG I didn't want the glorious leader position, so I won't pretend I speak for it, and I'll only object for the three affected packages I maintain or co-maintain. If this change is to be done I'll insist his author explain and defend it on the SIG list, then write a formal FPC proposal, and get this proposal approved all the way up. This is a "fix"? in search of a problem?, and while I've been known to make gratuitous changes to make a point too?, I've limited myself to my own packages, and I'll appreciate the same restraint in my fellow Fedorans. I don't mind people touching my packages, but only if there are actual problems to fix. Regards, ? That can actually increase the probability bad packages make it through QA ? One documented failure in rawhide does not count, if we shot everything that ever went wrong in rawhide little would be left ? Yes I'm a bastard too. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From behdad at behdad.org Mon Nov 19 21:39:56 2007 From: behdad at behdad.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:39:56 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: Font issues (mkfontdir & friends not getting run) with F-8] In-Reply-To: <473E99F1.7090907@hhs.nl> References: <1195250399.3177.2.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1195251486.24535.46.camel@home.behdad.org> <473E99F1.7090907@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <1195508396.25781.17.camel@home.behdad.org> On Sat, 2007-11-17 at 08:36 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Behdad Esfahbod wrote: [snip] > > Fontconfig doesn't store cache files in the directory anymore. They go > > in /var/cache/fontconfig. That's been the case for a while. > > Ah, then the packages also should no longer ghost fc-cache in the fonts dir. No, they shouldn't. > >> As for the other two not being created, well that is to be expected if the > >> necessary packages are not added to any Requires. > >> > >> Why are these files generated on install anyways, I understand this used to be > >> usefull back in the days when multiple packages would install files under one > >> dir, but isn't it so that most font dirs now only contain fonts from one package? > > > > I don't understand. When are you suggesting they should be generated? > > At package buildtime, and then simply include them in the package > instead of %ghost them and generate them with scriptlets. Interesting. Never thought about it like that. However, there are a few reason why that's not going to work: - fc-cache (and similar tools I assume) don't handle DESTDIR. You sure can force them to do it, but it needs considerable effort on the packagers side. - fontconfig cache format/version changes over time. Mostly in a compatible way, but still making old caches useless. This happened with the recent 2.5 for example. - Kind of rewording of the previous item: We're trying to make font packages not depend on fontconfig. Would be kinda weird to install a fontconfig cache file without checking fontconfig version. I don't think cache updates are hassle enough to try to fix them right now. Obsolete core-protocol fonts are out of my expertise/interest so I leave that to others. > Regards, > > Hans Regards, -- behdad http://behdad.org/ "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Nov 20 09:50:55 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:50:55 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Fwd: Font issues (mkfontdir & friends not getting run) with F-8] Message-ID: <63540.192.54.193.53.1195552255.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Mar 20 novembre 2007 10:32, Hans de Goede a ?crit : >> Obsolete core-protocol fonts are out of my expertise/interest so I >> leave that to others. >> > > Too bad, as that is the real problem, Core fonts are basically under-maintained with few people willing to invest the time to make them sort-of work. If you have an interest in them you can drive this work on the fonts SIG list because otherwise you may wait a long time for someone else to do it. Or you can decide like a lot of people it's not worth it and upstreams that refuse to change can find themselves other packagers. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Nov 20 10:55:05 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 11:55:05 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Fwd: Font issues (mkfontdir & friends not getting run) with F-8] Message-ID: <38743.192.54.193.53.1195556105.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Mar 20 novembre 2007 11:25, Hans de Goede a ?crit : > Isn't the solution for this problem (missing fonts.dir / fonts.scale) > as simple > as adding a single guideline that font packages which add a symlink > under > /etc/X11/fontpath.d MUST ship a pre-generated fonts.dir and > fonts.scale, and no > try to generate these using scriptlets? IIRC pre-shipping these files caused other problems, but I doubt there is enough core fonts expertise left to identify them easily (I vaguely remember mkfontdir output was dependant on local hardware resolution or xorg version). The people who knew core fonts innards dropped it like radioactive material as soon as fontconfig was available. Whatever solution you choose forcing installation of core fonts backend by the main font package is a no-go for modern fonts (TTF/OTF, maybe Type 1 too). You can split the core font scriptlet parts in a subpackage, or ship pre-generated files, as long as you do not impact the vast majority of users who have no need for core fonts. -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Nov 20 12:51:30 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:51:30 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Fwd: Font issues (mkfontdir & friends not getting run) with F-8] Message-ID: <50080.192.54.193.53.1195563090.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Mar 20 novembre 2007 13:11, Hans de Goede a ?crit : > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> Whatever solution you choose forcing installation of core fonts >> backend by the main font package is a no-go for modern fonts >> (TTF/OTF, >> maybe Type 1 too). > > What do you mean with the "core fonts backend"? Fonts accessed through the original X core protocol. Official X11/XFree86/Xorg name of what you are writing about. (http://keithp.com/~keithp/talks/xtc2001/paper/) >> You can split the core font scriptlet parts in a >> subpackage, or ship pre-generated files, as long as you do not >> impact >> the vast majority of users who have no need for core fonts. >> > > Yes, assuming that with the "core fonts backend" you mean mkfontdir & > friends, > then I agree, having a dependency on these is not a good plan, so I > see 2 options: > 1) Use pregenerated files (I just checked there contents and I see > nothing > different from how they looked in the XFree86 3.x days, so I do > not believe > these are xorg version / arch / dpi dependent). This is the > prefered option. This was changed to scriptlets in the time we still had people caring about core fonts so I wouldn't assume there were no technical reason for the change. But I actively don't care whether core fonts work or not so if you believe this will work and are ready to shoulder the resulting QA you're free to go this way. > 2) The gtk-update-icon-cache way, so conditionally run mkfontdir and > friends > from scripts, if installed. And on installation of mkfontdir, run > it for all > dirs under /etc/X11/fontpath.d > > I believe 1 si greatly preferred We chose 2 for fontconfig, but if you do the work you call the shots, as long as you conform to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FontsPolicy Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Nov 20 20:31:51 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 21:31:51 +0100 Subject: [Fwd: Summary of the 2007-11-20 Packaging Committee meeting] Message-ID: <1195590711.32232.2.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Hi, The fonts SIG packaging policy was approved by FPC today. Next week FESCO is expected to ratify the document and make it an official binding Fedora policy. Regards, -------- Message transf?r? -------- De: Jason L Tibbitts III R?pondre ?: Development discussions related to Fedora Sujet: Summary of the 2007-11-20 Packaging Committee meeting Date: 20 Nov 2007 14:02:25 -0600 Meeting minutes and full logs of the packaging committee meeting which occurred on 2007-11-20 are online: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes20071120 Executive summary: No new guidelines this week. Issues pending FESCO ratification: * Policy for font packages: * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FontsPolicy * Accepted (with changes) (5-0) * Voting for: spot rdieter abadger1999 scop tibbs * Abstaining: racor * Some notes: * There are components of the proposal which go beyond packaging policy and are not considered by FPC. This includes the CompsPolicy document and sections of the draft relating to grouping or comps. These should be discussed by FESCo. * http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FontsSpecTemplate was approved as part of this proposal with the caveat that the scriptlets be prevented from failing. Misc business: * Three volunteers expressed interest in joining the committee; spot will poll the membership and we'll decide whether to expand the committee or rotate through some members on-list. * Next meeting will be December 4th at 17:00UTC. - J< -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From fangqq at gmail.com Sat Nov 24 04:25:16 2007 From: fangqq at gmail.com (Qianqian Fang) Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:25:16 -0500 Subject: Request for review and advice on wqy-bitmap-fonts fontconfig settings Message-ID: <4747A7AC.2080908@gmail.com> hi I am quite new as a Fedora package maintainer. I submitted a few Chinese font packages to Fedora, and luckily, Jens Petersen has been extremely patient and guided me through package submission processes. I am glad that these fonts are now serving the Chinese Fedora users and we got quite good feedbacks from them. Today, I would like to ask for your help to create a robust fontconfig file for wqy-bitmap-fonts. This font was installed by default in Fedora 8 for Chinese users. It recently caused some problems displaying Latins for non-Chinese users. Please see bug #381311 for more details. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=381311 I will describe my goals, the achieved results and the problems. =================================== 1. Motivations and goals As an active developer and Linux user for couple of years, I strongly feel that there is a consensus among most Chinese users (both Mainland and Taiwan) for font rendering. These consensus can be summarized as the followings: 1. given the fact that most Chinese vector font rendering are quite blurry on nearly all Linux distributions, plus the fact that there is no free Chinese fonts with high quality hinting, hand-tuned bitmap glyphs are preferred for on screen display of Chinese characters 2. Latin glyphs has low stroke density and autohinting is becoming sufficient, using vector glyphs of these non-CJK characters is preferred 3. ideally, the requirement #1 should be locale independent (maybe exclude ko/ja users, if it conflicts with their consensus); requirement #2 is virtually true for most modern Linux desktops nowadays (for non-CJK locales) The following two pictures may shine some light on what a normal Chinese user considers as a "good" font rendering: * under non-Chinese locales (use en_US as an example) [can not be achieved for now, used post-processing] http://wenq.org/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/confopt_preferred_rendering_en-us.png * under Chinese locales (use zh_TW as an example) [achieved on F8 with wqy-bitmap-fonts 0.9.9-1] http://wenq.org/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/confopt_preferred_rendering_zh.png the main features include: A. when rendering Hanzi for generic aliases (i.e. sans/serif/mono): A.1: if font sizes are common on screen, such as 8pt-12pt, use bitmap Chinese font A.2: for sizes above or below, use the first preferred vector Chinese font B. when rendering non-Hanzi (or non-CJK) glyphs, use the preferred fonts determined by fontconfig C. when a specific Chinese font was chosen, exclusively use this font for all covered characters =================================== 2. Default rendering of Hanzi on F8 without wqy-bitmap-fonts Without installing wqy-bitmap-fonts, the screenshots of F8 is shown below: * under non-Chinese locales (use en_US as an example) http://wenq.org/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/confopt_F8_no_wqy-bitmap_en-us.png unsatisfactories: 1) no bitmap fonts were used for screen-sized Hanzi 2) garbled text with a mixture of Japanese and Chinese fonts (the headings) 3) Hanzi glyphs are blurry, getting worse for large blocks of text * under Chinese locales (use zh_TW as an example) http://wenq.org/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/confopt_F8_no_wqy-bitmap_zh.png unsatisfactories: 1) generally looks OK if Uming is installed 2) for mono, the Latins in Uming were used, rather than Dejavu/Vera 3) for serif, no bitmap glyphs because UKai has no embedded bitmaps =================================== 3. Hanzi rendering on F8 with 85-wqy-bitmapsong.conf The devel. of wqy-bitmap-fonts started from expanding the embedded bitmap fonts in Uming (both originated from firefly-bitmap-font) 3 years ago. After 3 years development at wenq.org, our project website, we have completed all bitmap glyphs for CJK Basic (U4E00-U9FA5) and CJK Extension A (U3400-U4DB5), covering 27,484 characters at 4 point sizes, nearly twice of the Uming's embed bitmaps (only ~15,000 characters). In addition, 80% of the old firefly(uming) glyphs were fine-tuned. The improvements are quite significant, making the font a popular choice among Chinese users. The following sample shows the difference between uming and wqy-bitmap-fonts: http://wenq.org/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/confopt_wqy-bitmap_vs_uming.png In package wqy-bitmap-fonts, we provided a default fontconfig file, 85-wqy-bitmapsong.conf (see attachment). Using this file, we raised the priority of wqy-bitmap-fonts for rendering Hanzi, while trying to keep it lower than the default sans/serif/mono Latin fonts. With this file, Chinese users are able to get the preferred rendering as shown above, i.e. http://wenq.org/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/confopt_preferred_rendering_zh.png however, for English locales, it did not seem to improve the situation, nor make it worse (at least with my copy) http://wenq.org/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/en_US_with_wqy-bitmap-fonts.png I do noticed that this file has side effects, the bug thread (#381311) as an example, however, so far I have not yet been able to identify the exact cause. These reports are rather random and mostly non-repeatable. Debugging fontconfig outputs constantly gives me confusing results. My guess is that we might use some fragile fontconfig syntax and are not consistently executed over different systems. =================================== 4. Questions That's all I want to learn from you: do you see a robust implementation of fontconfig font selection mechanism to achieve my goals above? if yes, how? if no, to whom should I file bug reports to? I apologize for the long email, I wish you read to this line before giving up. thank you so much and looking forward to hearing back from you. Qianqian -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 85-wqy-bitmapsong.conf Type: text/xml Size: 2489 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Nov 24 14:21:54 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 15:21:54 +0100 Subject: Request for review and advice on wqy-bitmap-fonts fontconfig settings In-Reply-To: <4747A7AC.2080908@gmail.com> References: <4747A7AC.2080908@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1195914114.5048.35.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le vendredi 23 novembre 2007 ? 23:25 -0500, Qianqian Fang a ?crit : Hi ?Qianqian, > 4. Questions > > That's all I want to learn from you: do you see a robust implementation > of fontconfig font selection mechanism to achieve my goals above? > if yes, how? if no, to whom should I file bug reports to? I'm not sure if I've assimilated all your goals, but here are some comments on your fontconfig file: > ? > You probably want ../?fonts.dtd there but that's general XML fontconfig brokenness most everyone is guilty of. > I suppose this is protected by the selectfont pattern before but I'd avoid playing any complex substitution games when the name of an existing on-system font is given, and only substitute either fonts not available at all or synthetic fonts like sans-serif and friends. Also, please use a simple match with a test for family inside instead of this pattern indirection, as documented on: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Packaging/Fontconfig > > en > en-us You have no business touching non CJK locales, please remove this. If for some reason an app does not tag text with the correct locale, complain to its authors. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Dev/LanguageAwarenessProblem These two lines are probably responsible for most of your problem reports. > zh-cn > zh-tw > zh-hk > zh-sg > > > 11 > > > 16 > Are you sure of the 11-16 pixel range? > > WenQuanYi Bitmap Song > > > [?] > > 8 > > > 12 > Point sizes have no meaning for bitmap fonts, unless you assume a fixed point/pixel ratio, which is not hardware reality. Dump this match block it's actively evil. > > WenQuanYi Bitmap Song > > > > > WenQuanYi Bitmap Song > > > monospace > > > Bitstream Vera Sans Mono > > > DejaVu LGC Sans Mono > > If you didn't touch non-CJK locales before you wouldn't need this bandaid. Also you're assuming some other fonts are present on system which may not be the case. Our default latin font list is dynamic and changes from release to release, and depending on what font packages users actually install. If you really want Vera or DejaVu to override ?WenQuanYi Bitmap Song contents, the override should be added to the fontconfig file those fonts ship. Wouldn't a simple http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Packaging/Fontconfig#local-specific-default-font-overrides rule with additional pixel range restriction be sufficient for your needs? Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From duffy at redhat.com Sun Nov 25 04:52:28 2007 From: duffy at redhat.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:52:28 -0500 Subject: Bunch of new Fonts added to wishlist Message-ID: <4748FF8C.407@redhat.com> Hi folks, I just added a bunch of fonts to the font sig wishlist [1]. These are fonts that I thought were pretty high-quality from an artistic POV from the list of fonts [2] that I put together a couple of months back. I would love to see some of these in F9 for the Art Studio spin. I updated the spreadsheet [3] there, coloring fonts that are already in Fedora blue, ones that are proposed on the wishlist green, and those with an unacceptable license in grey. I may go through some of the links at the top of the wishlist page and see if I can find more suitably-licensed fonts; If I do I will update the list below. Anyhow, here's the list that I just added: mgopen canonica mgopen cosmetica mgopen modata mgopen moderna epigrafica gillius adf GFS Didot GFS Bodoni GFS Neohellenic GFS Artemisia GFS Theokritos GFS Olga GFS Didot Classic GFS Porson GFS Baskerville GFS Bodoni Classic GFS Gazis GFS Solomos GFS Porson GFS Complutum Delphine Regular Steve Hand Dustismo Sans Dustismo Roman Dark Garden Tuffy Tuffy MH3 Isabella Essays 1743 Rockets Stay Puft Kerkis To Be Continued Letters Laughing Rubbing Font Banana Peels ~m [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Triaging/Pipeline/WishList [2] http://duffy.fedorapeople.org/fonts [3] http://duffy.fedorapeople.org/fonts/font-study.ods From duffy at redhat.com Sun Nov 25 06:06:20 2007 From: duffy at redhat.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 01:06:20 -0500 Subject: Bunch of new Fonts added to wishlist In-Reply-To: <4748FF8C.407@redhat.com> References: <4748FF8C.407@redhat.com> Message-ID: <474910DC.7010203@redhat.com> M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > Hi folks, > > I just added a bunch of fonts to the font sig wishlist [1]. These are > fonts that I thought were pretty high-quality from an artistic POV from > the list of fonts [2] that I put together a couple of months back. I > would love to see some of these in F9 for the Art Studio spin. whoops just noticed the mgopen ones are already packaged, removing them from the list. Also added Legendum and Garogier. ~m From duffy at redhat.com Sun Nov 25 06:16:49 2007 From: duffy at redhat.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 01:16:49 -0500 Subject: computer modern unicode fonts? Message-ID: <47491351.8000200@redhat.com> Hi, I was wondering if anyone knew if the computer modern unicode fonts [1] are packaged in Fedora? Since they are X11 and GPL licensed I find it hard to believe they are not already but I can't seem to find them in Fedora. ~m [1] http://canopus.iacp.dvo.ru/~panov/cm-unicode/ From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Nov 25 14:07:46 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:07:46 +0100 Subject: computer modern unicode fonts? In-Reply-To: <47491351.8000200@redhat.com> References: <47491351.8000200@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1195999667.22272.26.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le dimanche 25 novembre 2007 ? 01:16 -0500, M?ir?n Duffy a ?crit : > Hi, Hi ?M?ir?n, (nice work on the wishlist BTW) > I was wondering if anyone knew if the computer modern unicode fonts [1] > are packaged in Fedora? > > Since they are X11 and GPL licensed I find it hard to believe they are > not already but I can't seem to find them in Fedora. They're not because their build process is non-trivial, I wholly agree it would be great to package them, but it needs someone with TEX experience to do them. I've already added them to the wishlist some time back. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Nov 25 14:14:01 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:14:01 +0100 Subject: Bunch of new Fonts added to wishlist In-Reply-To: <474910DC.7010203@redhat.com> References: <4748FF8C.407@redhat.com> <474910DC.7010203@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1196000041.22272.32.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le dimanche 25 novembre 2007 ? 01:06 -0500, M?ir?n Duffy a ?crit : > whoops just noticed the mgopen ones are already packaged, removing them > from the list. Yep, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Triaging/Pipeline/#packaged is not complete, Jens and me add new entries there every once in a while, it'd be great if more people helped complete this part faster, to avoid mistakes such as yours. Now we have a monster wishlist you wouldn't want to recruit us more font packagers, or even package a few fonts :p ? (it's not difficult and if there's a problem in the packaging doc just point me to it and I'll try to fix it) Thanks for your work. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From duffy at redhat.com Sun Nov 25 18:05:55 2007 From: duffy at redhat.com (=?UTF-8?B?TcOhaXLDrW4gRHVmZnk=?=) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:05:55 -0500 Subject: Bunch of new Fonts added to wishlist In-Reply-To: <1196000041.22272.32.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <4748FF8C.407@redhat.com> <474910DC.7010203@redhat.com> <1196000041.22272.32.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4749B983.8040805@redhat.com> Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Now we have a monster wishlist you wouldn't want to recruit us more font > packagers, or even package a few fonts :p ? :) That's my next intention; I sure will let you know if I run into issues going through the packaging doc. ~m From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Nov 25 19:07:34 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:07:34 +0100 Subject: Bunch of new Fonts added to review list Message-ID: <1196017654.13909.3.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Hi all, Inspired by M?ir?n's activity I've packaged a few fonts which are now stuck into review: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Triaging/Pipeline?action=show#review-needed They will probably be the last fonts I'll package since I don't believe being responsible for too many different packages is healthy (ok I'll probably finish the Greek Font Society fonts) Some notes: ? these are all OTF fonts, so they won't work in apps that can't handle this format. Some offenders are well-known (OpenOffice.org in particular, see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/QA#known-problems). Go comment/vote in the various upstream issue trackers if you want this fixed. ? I didn't package the TrueType variants of the Greek Font Society fonts: most of the TrueType archives do not include a clear license like the OTF ones, they're older so I've no idea if they include the whole last version of the fonts, they declare the same font names and I don't want to find out how applications will react to the same font in two different format on-system. I may reconsider if someone convinces the Greek Font Society to release the same nice archives they did for OTF fonts, and if the fonts in those archives declare a different font name (for example GFS Didot TT) ? I used the font files most recent timestamp as version since the fonts all declared a 1.0 version but had obviously been modified several times in their lives. Again if someone convinces the Greek Font Society to use proper versioning I may change this in the future. ? most fonts have been declared on fontconfig priority 60, which mean they may take precendence over other latin fonts if neither DejaVu, nor Liberation are installed. Nevertheless I didn't just blindly cut and pasted fontconfig rules, but tried to adapt them to each font. ? I do not intend to group the Greek Font Society fonts in any particular way. If there is enough user demand I may create a GFS comps group, but right now I plan to just ship separate fonts files. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From paskalis at di.uoa.gr Mon Nov 26 14:25:51 2007 From: paskalis at di.uoa.gr (Sarantis Paskalis) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:25:51 +0200 Subject: Bunch of new Fonts added to wishlist In-Reply-To: <4748FF8C.407@redhat.com> References: <4748FF8C.407@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20071126142551.GA20499@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> Hi, On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 11:52:28PM -0500, M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > Hi folks, > > I just added a bunch of fonts to the font sig wishlist [1]. These are fonts > that I thought were pretty high-quality from an artistic POV from the list > of fonts [2] that I put together a couple of months back. I would love to > see some of these in F9 for the Art Studio spin. > > I updated the spreadsheet [3] there, coloring fonts that are already in > Fedora blue, ones that are proposed on the wishlist green, and those with > an unacceptable license in grey. > > I may go through some of the links at the top of the wishlist page and see > if I can find more suitably-licensed fonts; If I do I will update the list > below. > > Anyhow, here's the list that I just added: > > mgopen canonica > mgopen cosmetica > mgopen modata > mgopen moderna As you saw already, these are packaged as mgopen-fonts. The mgopen project, however, does not seem to be making any progress beyond the first release of the fonts. > GFS Didot > GFS Bodoni > GFS Neohellenic > GFS Artemisia > GFS Theokritos > GFS Olga > GFS Didot Classic > GFS Porson > GFS Baskerville > GFS Bodoni Classic > GFS Gazis > GFS Solomos > GFS Porson > GFS Complutum I plan to package the above some time if noone beats me to it. When the tetex->TeXLive dust settles, I plan to also package the TeX-related bindings. > Kerkis There is a Kerkis package for TeX (tetex-font-kerkis). Nowadays, the author of this font publishes TTF and OTF files, quite suitable for on-screen display. The license, however, is a bit ambiguous, possibly even a removal candidate. http://iris.math.aegean.gr/kerkis/ (see the License subsection). A side question: Does anyone have experience about packaging the same font both for X11 and TeX? Do I need to include the same font files twice? Create soft/hard links for efficiency? Require one (X11) for the other (TeX)? Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks, -- Sarantis From paskalis at di.uoa.gr Mon Nov 26 14:52:41 2007 From: paskalis at di.uoa.gr (Sarantis Paskalis) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:52:41 +0200 Subject: Bunch of new Fonts added to review list In-Reply-To: <1196017654.13909.3.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <1196017654.13909.3.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <20071126145241.GA21248@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> (Hadn't seen this mail yet) On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 08:07:34PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Hi all, > > Inspired by M?ir?n's activity I've packaged a few fonts which are now > stuck into review: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Triaging/Pipeline?action=show#review-needed > > They will probably be the last fonts I'll package since I don't believe > being responsible for too many different packages is healthy (ok I'll > probably finish the Greek Font Society fonts) If you need help maintaining them, please let me know. I'll try to review some of the not-yet reviewed, time permitting. > Some notes: > > ? these are all OTF fonts, so they won't work in apps that can't handle > this format. Some offenders are well-known (OpenOffice.org in > particular, see > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/QA#known-problems). Go > comment/vote in the various upstream issue trackers if you want this > fixed. > > ? I didn't package the TrueType variants of the Greek Font Society > fonts: most of the TrueType archives do not include a clear license like > the OTF ones, they're older so I've no idea if they include the whole > last version of the fonts, they declare the same font names and I don't > want to find out how applications will react to the same font in two > different format on-system. I may reconsider if someone convinces the > Greek Font Society to release the same nice archives they did for OTF > fonts, and if the fonts in those archives declare a different font name > (for example GFS Didot TT) I'll ask about the discrepancy. > ? I used the font files most recent timestamp as version since the > fonts all declared a 1.0 version but had obviously been modified > several times > in their lives. Again if someone convinces the Greek Font Society to use > proper versioning I may change this in the future. This too. > ? most fonts have been declared on fontconfig priority 60, which mean > they may take precendence over other latin fonts if neither DejaVu, nor > Liberation are installed. Nevertheless I didn't just blindly cut and > pasted fontconfig rules, but tried to adapt them to each font. > > ? I do not intend to group the Greek Font Society fonts in any > particular way. If there is enough user demand I may create a GFS comps > group, but right now I plan to just ship separate fonts files. Sounds OK to me. Thanks, -- Sarantis From dave at lab6.com Mon Nov 26 14:53:06 2007 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:53:06 +0000 Subject: Bunch of new Fonts added to wishlist In-Reply-To: <20071126142551.GA20499@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> References: <4748FF8C.407@redhat.com> <20071126142551.GA20499@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> Message-ID: <2285a9d20711260653s456aa450h3d13d5432626afa2@mail.gmail.com> Hi, I haven't done any Fedora packaging before, but I would be happy to help with this effort. I am involved in the Open Font Library and we have collected a list of free fonts on our wiki, http://openfontlibrary.org/wiki/Existing_Free_Fonts I hope that the OFLB infrastructure will eventually become a central repository that many GNU/Linux distributions can base sets of font packages off in an automated way; many free software fonts are like mgopen in that they are released and development is not continued, and I hope that the OFLB will become a place where further developments are collected. -- Regards, Dave From dave at lab6.com Mon Nov 26 14:57:20 2007 From: dave at lab6.com (Dave Crossland) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:57:20 +0000 Subject: Bunch of new Fonts added to wishlist In-Reply-To: <2285a9d20711260653s456aa450h3d13d5432626afa2@mail.gmail.com> References: <4748FF8C.407@redhat.com> <20071126142551.GA20499@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> <2285a9d20711260653s456aa450h3d13d5432626afa2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2285a9d20711260657h23240e80if10c8ade4b40ae4d@mail.gmail.com> On 26/11/2007, Dave Crossland wrote: > > I am involved in the Open Font Library and we have collected a list of > free fonts on our wiki, > http://openfontlibrary.org/wiki/Existing_Free_Fonts Haha woops I see this listed at the top of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Triaging/Pipeline/WishList :-) -- Regards, Dave From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Nov 26 14:58:05 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:58:05 +0100 (CET) Subject: Bunch of new Fonts added to wishlist Message-ID: <14392.192.54.193.53.1196089085.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> >> Kerkis > > There is a Kerkis package for TeX (tetex-font-kerkis). Nowadays, the > author of this font publishes TTF and OTF files, quite suitable for > on-screen display. The license, however, is a bit ambiguous, possibly > even a removal candidate. http://iris.math.aegean.gr/kerkis/ (see the > License subsection). This one should have been passed through fedora-legal before inclusion. Everyone please do not package any font with a new license without getting its license approved on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Legal -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Nov 26 15:03:15 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:03:15 +0100 (CET) Subject: Bunch of new Fonts added to wishlist Message-ID: <45501.192.54.193.53.1196089395.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Lun 26 novembre 2007 15:25, Sarantis Paskalis a ?crit : > As you saw already, these are packaged as mgopen-fonts. The mgopen > project, however, does not seem to be making any progress beyond the > first release of the fonts. Same thing as what happened to Vera. The various people wanting to make the fonts evolve need to agree on a new FLOSS upstream like it happened to DejaVu. IMHO we should not package all the MGOpen derivatives before a clear new upstream emerges. >> GFS Didot >> GFS Bodoni >> GFS Neohellenic >> GFS Artemisia >> GFS Theokritos >> GFS Olga >> GFS Didot Classic >> GFS Porson >> GFS Baskerville >> GFS Bodoni Classic >> GFS Gazis >> GFS Solomos >> GFS Porson >> GFS Complutum > > I plan to package the above some time if noone beats me to it. Already done but now the packages await review (half of them at least). > When the > tetex->TeXLive dust settles, I plan to also package the TeX-related > bindings. If you know tex please do Computer Modern Unicode - he's stuck waiting for someone that understands tex to write a specfile that allows building it from Fedora TEX in Fedora fontforge. > A side question: Does anyone have experience about packaging the same > font both for X11 and TeX? Do I need to include the same font files > twice? Create soft/hard links for efficiency? Require one (X11) for > the other (TeX)? As I already answered bitmap and core X11 fonts users : the wiki is open for new guidelines, as long as they respect our general packaging policy http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Packaging/Policy Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Nov 26 15:05:53 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:05:53 +0100 (CET) Subject: Bunch of new Fonts added to wishlist Message-ID: <61910.192.54.193.53.1196089553.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Lun 26 novembre 2007 15:53, Dave Crossland a ?crit : > Hi, > > I haven't done any Fedora packaging before, but I would be happy to > help with this effort. Welcome to the team! I've tried to write complete documentation on fedora-style packaging there http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Packaging please ping the list if something stops you from packaging OFLB fonts. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From paskalis at di.uoa.gr Mon Nov 26 15:10:56 2007 From: paskalis at di.uoa.gr (Sarantis Paskalis) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:10:56 +0200 Subject: Bunch of new Fonts added to wishlist In-Reply-To: <14392.192.54.193.53.1196089085.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <14392.192.54.193.53.1196089085.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <20071126151056.GA21462@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 03:58:05PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > >> Kerkis > > > > There is a Kerkis package for TeX (tetex-font-kerkis). Nowadays, the > > author of this font publishes TTF and OTF files, quite suitable for > > on-screen display. The license, however, is a bit ambiguous, possibly > > even a removal candidate. http://iris.math.aegean.gr/kerkis/ (see the > > License subsection). > > This one should have been passed through fedora-legal before > inclusion. Everyone please do not package any font with a new license > without getting its license approved on > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Legal I actually inherited the package during the transfer from fedora.us and did not double-check the license until a little ago. I will however pass this through legal now. -- Sarantis From paskalis at di.uoa.gr Mon Nov 26 15:24:11 2007 From: paskalis at di.uoa.gr (Sarantis Paskalis) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:24:11 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Bunch of new Fonts added to wishlist In-Reply-To: <1196089983.15604.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <14392.192.54.193.53.1196089085.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1196089983.15604.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20071126152411.GC21536@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 10:13:03AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > > On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 15:58 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > >> Kerkis > > > > > > There is a Kerkis package for TeX (tetex-font-kerkis). Nowadays, the > > > author of this font publishes TTF and OTF files, quite suitable for > > > on-screen display. The license, however, is a bit ambiguous, possibly > > > even a removal candidate. http://iris.math.aegean.gr/kerkis/ (see the > > > License subsection). > > > > This one should have been passed through fedora-legal before > > inclusion. > > Definitely. That license is waaaay too vague as is. > > We'd need to know if: > > 1. Modification is permitted > 2. Redistribution is permitted (this is implied, but not explicitly > granted) > 3. Redistribution in embedded documents is permitted > > That's just for starters. The commercial copyright "advertising" clause > is also painfully vague. > > Someone motivated (and likely, fluent in greek), should email the > copyright holders and suggest that they either clarify their license, or > consider relicensing it with an established free license (e.g. the OFL). I will contact the author to clarify the above. Thanks for the guidelines. -- Sarantis From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Nov 26 19:20:53 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:20:53 +0100 Subject: Low-Vision Fonts GPL'd--Can we consider for F-9? In-Reply-To: <1196103349.23626.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20071126180200.GI22661@rednote.net> <1196103349.23626.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1196104853.10740.4.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Please CC the fonts list on fonts stuff Le lundi 26 novembre 2007 ? 13:55 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway a ?crit : > On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 13:02 -0500, Janina Sajka wrote: > > This is a heads up and RFE. PerhapsGnome is the appropriate path to > > introduce this specialized font--but perhaps F-9 might simply want to > > take it up directly? > > Sure, why not? If gnome picks it up, we can always have it obsolete > this. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=399881 Some quick comments (I'm knee-deep in my own packaging right now) ? upstream forgot the font embedding GPL exception. Not a blocker but users will complain ? I'm not too fond of multisource spec files, separate packages are usually more flexible and easier to maintain Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From moyogo at gmail.com Mon Nov 26 22:31:03 2007 From: moyogo at gmail.com (Denis Jacquerye) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:31:03 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Bunch of new Fonts added to wishlist In-Reply-To: <20071126152411.GC21536@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> References: <14392.192.54.193.53.1196089085.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1196089983.15604.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20071126152411.GC21536@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> Message-ID: <8ebc61110711261431o1d46934cr1e1a570cc914e467@mail.gmail.com> On Nov 26, 2007 4:24 PM, Sarantis Paskalis wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 10:13:03AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 15:58 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > >> Kerkis > > > > > > > > There is a Kerkis package for TeX (tetex-font-kerkis). Nowadays, the > > > > author of this font publishes TTF and OTF files, quite suitable for > > > > on-screen display. The license, however, is a bit ambiguous, possibly > > > > even a removal candidate. http://iris.math.aegean.gr/kerkis/ (see the > > > > License subsection). > > > > > > This one should have been passed through fedora-legal before > > > inclusion. > > > > Definitely. That license is waaaay too vague as is. > > > > We'd need to know if: > > > > 1. Modification is permitted > > 2. Redistribution is permitted (this is implied, but not explicitly > > granted) > > 3. Redistribution in embedded documents is permitted > > > > That's just for starters. The commercial copyright "advertising" clause > > is also painfully vague. > > > > Someone motivated (and likely, fluent in greek), should email the > > copyright holders and suggest that they either clarify their license, or > > consider relicensing it with an established free license (e.g. the OFL). > > I will contact the author to clarify the above. Thanks for the > guidelines. > The outlines of Kerkis fonts look like those of URW Bookman and URW Gothic. Kerkis has different a style of figures than URW Bookman and has more character coverage. If Kerkis fonts are derivatives of URW's gsfonts, then the license should be the same as gsfonts. URW Bookman and URW Gothic are GPL'ed. Cheers -- Denis Moyogo Jacquerye --- http://home.sus.mcgill.ca/~moyogo Nk?t? ya Kong? m?bal? --- http://info-langues-congo.1sd.org/ DejaVu fonts --- http://dejavu.sourceforge.net/ Unicode (UTF-8) From paskalis at di.uoa.gr Mon Nov 26 21:11:31 2007 From: paskalis at di.uoa.gr (Sarantis Paskalis) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:11:31 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legal-list] Re: Bunch of new Fonts added to wishlist In-Reply-To: <20071126152411.GC21536@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> References: <14392.192.54.193.53.1196089085.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1196089983.15604.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20071126152411.GC21536@gallagher.di.uoa.gr> Message-ID: <474B3683.1040000@di.uoa.gr> Sarantis Paskalis wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 10:13:03AM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote: >> On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 15:58 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >>>>> Kerkis >>>> There is a Kerkis package for TeX (tetex-font-kerkis). Nowadays, the >>>> author of this font publishes TTF and OTF files, quite suitable for >>>> on-screen display. The license, however, is a bit ambiguous, possibly >>>> even a removal candidate. http://iris.math.aegean.gr/kerkis/ (see the >>>> License subsection). >>> This one should have been passed through fedora-legal before >>> inclusion. >> Definitely. That license is waaaay too vague as is. >> >> We'd need to know if: >> >> 1. Modification is permitted >> 2. Redistribution is permitted (this is implied, but not explicitly >> granted) >> 3. Redistribution in embedded documents is permitted >> >> That's just for starters. The commercial copyright "advertising" clause >> is also painfully vague. >> >> Someone motivated (and likely, fluent in greek), should email the >> copyright holders and suggest that they either clarify their license, or >> consider relicensing it with an established free license (e.g. the OFL). > > I will contact the author to clarify the above. Thanks for the > guidelines. And here is the gist of the communication with the maintainer. The current license of the font is in the License.txt file in CTAN: http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/fonts/greek/kerkis/License.txt The Copyright of the fonts belongs to the The Department of Mathematics of the University of the Aegean, Karlovassi, Samos, Greece If you want to use this font family in commercial work (like in books), we strongly request that you include in the Copyright section the fact that you are using "Kerkis (C) Department of Mathematics, University of the Aegean". "The Kerkis fonts and kerkis.sty are licensed under the LaTeX Project Public License, version 1.3c or later. See http://www.latex-project.org/lppl." He also gave positive answers to the primary questions and has relaxed the advertising clause (from the former *must* to *strong request*). Is there something else that needs to be communicated or can we consider this font OK? Thanks, -- Sarantis From fangqq at gmail.com Thu Nov 29 07:08:27 2007 From: fangqq at gmail.com (Qianqian Fang) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 02:08:27 -0500 Subject: Request for review and advice on wqy-bitmap-fonts fontconfig settings In-Reply-To: <1195914114.5048.35.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <4747A7AC.2080908@gmail.com> <1195914114.5048.35.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: hi Nicolas the syntax described in Fonts/Packaging/Fontconfigseems not sufficient to accomplish the desired substitution rules. First, we want to set wqy-bitmap-fonts as the default font for displaying Chinese characters (for example U4E00-U9FA5, and U3400-U4D86 and some punctuations), for all aliases (sans/serif/mono), and all locales (maybe except ja/ko), only at 10px to 16px. This can not be done with syntax (I just tested, it used the Latin part in wqy-bitmap-fonts in mono, and can not use Uming/ukai for above/below 10-16px, both of these are bad). Second, I want the system preferred Latin fonts to display the non-CJK part. The provided syntax, in my own opinion, can not do this either. You mention "no business touching non CJK locales," I don't fully agree. The default fontconfig setup for rendering Chinese webpages under non-zh locales is terrible. You can test this using en or other non CJK locales, by browsing http://wenq.org , you will see a mixed text rendered by Japanese fonts, uming, ukai and some Japanese/Korean bitmap X core fonts. In my opinion, that is non-usable. To tell the truth, en_US is my default locale for both office and at home. I don't want my desktop looks non-legible by my colleagues. However, I do want it to process Chinese properly. Most my Chinese friends working in the US have the same set up for the same reason. The default en (or non CJK) Chinese rendering does need to be improved (it might be more appropriate to handle this with Fedora font committee or some sort, but improving the situation by installing an additional font package may not a bad solution either: those who don't like it just uninstall this font, and everything will back to the default way). Last, the link that you mentioned does look promising: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Packaging/Fontconfig#local-specific-default-font-overrides However, my question is, how can I make sure that the preferred Latin fonts (not necessarily Vera/Dejavu, could be something that user chose as in Andreas's case in bug #381311) overrides the Latin part of wqy? Thank you and I would be glad to hear further instructions. Qianqian On Nov 24, 2007 9:21 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le vendredi 23 novembre 2007 ? 23:25 -0500, Qianqian Fang a ?crit : > > Hi Qianqian, > > > 4. Questions > > > > That's all I want to learn from you: do you see a robust implementation > > of fontconfig font selection mechanism to achieve my goals above? > > if yes, how? if no, to whom should I file bug reports to? > > I'm not sure if I've assimilated all your goals, but here are some > comments on your fontconfig file: > > > > > > > You probably want ../fonts.dtd there but that's general XML fontconfig > brokenness most everyone is guilty of. > > > > > I suppose this is protected by the selectfont pattern before but I'd > avoid playing any complex substitution games when the name of an > existing on-system font is given, and only substitute either fonts not > available at all or synthetic fonts like sans-serif and friends. > > Also, please use a simple match with a test for family inside instead of > this pattern indirection, as documented on: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Packaging/Fontconfig > > > > > > en > > en-us > > You have no business touching non CJK locales, please remove this. If > for some reason an app does not tag text with the correct locale, > complain to its authors. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Dev/LanguageAwarenessProblem > > These two lines are probably responsible for most of your problem > reports. > > > zh-cn > > zh-tw > > zh-hk > > zh-sg > > > > > > > 11 > > > > > > 16 > > > > Are you sure of the 11-16 pixel range? > > > > > WenQuanYi Bitmap Song > > > > > > > > > [?] > > > > > 8 > > > > > > 12 > > > > Point sizes have no meaning for bitmap fonts, unless you assume a fixed > point/pixel ratio, which is not hardware reality. Dump this match block > it's actively evil. > > > > > WenQuanYi Bitmap Song > > > > > > > > > > > > WenQuanYi Bitmap Song > > > > > > monospace > > > > > > Bitstream Vera Sans Mono > > > > > > DejaVu LGC Sans Mono > > > > > > If you didn't touch non-CJK locales before you wouldn't need this > bandaid. Also you're assuming some other fonts are present on system > which may not be the case. Our default latin font list is dynamic and > changes from release to release, and depending on what font packages > users actually install. > > If you really want Vera or DejaVu to override WenQuanYi Bitmap Song > contents, the override should be added to the fontconfig file those > fonts ship. > > Wouldn't a simple > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Packaging/Fontconfig#local-specific-default-font-overrides > rule with additional pixel range restriction be sufficient for your > needs? > > > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Nov 29 09:12:52 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 10:12:52 +0100 (CET) Subject: Core fonts packaging guidelines writer WANTED Message-ID: <60213.192.54.193.53.1196327572.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Hi, As most of you know server-side fonts accessed through the core X11 protocol (aka core fonts) were superceded by client-side (fontconfig...) fonts in the past years. We've finally acknowledged this fact in Fedora 8 by removing xfs and the brutal check that killed user X sessions if more fonts were misconfigured (the dreaded "can not find font 'fixed'"). IIRC this was an OLPC request and I fully support this decision. As a result the burden of keeping core fonts working moved from the distribution as a whole to the group of people maintaining and using the small group of legacy applications that still use them. It seems this change was not integrated properly and several core font packages slipped in Fedora 8 in a broken state without anyone noticing (not through evil intent, just because the affected packages are old and crufty and the people that stridently defend core fonts use were doing something else). For the calendar-impaired, that was before the Fonts SIG started its activities. To fix this situation, I call for one or several core font users to rise to the occasion: A. Please join the fonts SIG http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts B. Please write well-though core fonts packaging guidelines consistent with the objectives of people already doing fonts work for other font backends. That means in particular not having core font utilities dependencies in font packages http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/FontsPolicy#no-handler-deps Several possible technical solutions have already been posted on the list, such as: 1. pre-generating fonts.* files at %build time or 2. duplicating the solution used for the fontconfig backend. That means: a. dynamically generating fonts.* files in conditionnal scriptlets (if core font tools are present on system), and b. have one package responsible for walking the configured core font directories and re-generating fonts.* files when installed, and make core font apps depend on it (so things still work if a core font using app is installed after fonts packages are) There may be other solutions, it's up to the core fonts community to choose one. Do not fall in the facility of brutaly making font packages depend on mkfontdir, as a lot of font packages are not exposed only via the core X11 protocol and most of their users do not want the core font stack installed. (OLPC is such a group). C. Please discuss your guidelines on the Fonts SIG list and among core fonts users so we have consensus. Then get your guidelines officialised D. Please audit all the existing core fonts packages and make them conform to the resulting core font guidelines, so we don't get accidental breakage like right now Anyone stepping in to do this will have my complete support, and I hope the one of the whole distribution. Otherwise Jens has indicated he may end up writing core fonts packaging guidelines, but frankly given the level of abuse we've seen from core font users lately I'd understand if he passed. And in the end core fonts users would be better served by guidelines written by less busy people who actually use the core fonts backend. This will be my last statement on the subject. Thank you for your attention. -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Nov 29 12:54:31 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:54:31 +0100 (CET) Subject: Core fonts packaging guidelines writer WANTED Message-ID: <5567.192.54.193.53.1196340871.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Jeu 29 novembre 2007 11:09, Hans de Goede a ?crit : > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > And here is the problem, when you write "the level of abuse we've seen > from core font users lately" below, I guess you mean mainly me, and I > apologize as I indeed have wrongly blamed the font SIG for the current > breakage. My aim was not to blame anyone, and while particularly excessive your reaction is fairly representative of the core font community so far. (ignore changes, let things rot, blame others when they finish breaking, and expect them to do the maintenance work in your stead). > However the above alinea starting at "Do not fall ..." is simply not > acceptable, there are 2 and only 2 options here: > 1) Leave core font packages as they are, as that has worked well for > years, It hasn't worked well, the difference is that the magic fairies that kept them working finaly left after numerous warnings enough was enough, leaving the people who claimed there was no problem handle the whole core fonts mess (since no one else used them anymore). Like every other component of the distribution core fonts need maintenance to keep working. The environment changes, if you want to freeze it just install a Fedora 1 to 7 system. One of the changes is a large group of users, OLPC, (that do actual work for the distro future unlike frozen-in-time legacy apps) requested making core fonts optional. Another is xfs was dumped. Yet another is the xorg version we use changed, and the new version does not register core font directories the same way. There are others I'm probably forgetting now. As a result leaving things as they are is not an option. Install pre-fedora 8 core font packages in Fedora 8 and you'll see how well they work in a current environment. Do you really want me to comment on your choice of (quoting) "the new guidelines are broken in that they do not offer a solution to the problem this creates, so I say ignore them until this bug in the guidelines gets fixed."? (in other words intentionaly push the one solution you know conflicts so someone else gets to document and fix the stuff your minority is using) Well I don't want to waste more time on this, my mail was addressed to people who are actually willing to do some work to restore core fonts to a maintained state. Please stand up. You'll get all the help the Fonts SIG can extend to help you make your beloved legacy apps work. I apologise to the lists for the flame spillovers. -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Nov 29 13:05:58 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 14:05:58 +0100 (CET) Subject: Core fonts packaging guidelines writer WANTED Message-ID: <15861.192.54.193.53.1196341558.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Jeu 29 novembre 2007 11:09, Hans de Goede a ?crit : > And here is the problem again, if some people want to see things > changed (mainly see the requires upon mkfontdir / mkfontscale removed) To restore historical accuracy the broken package had no mkfontdir dependencies through no particular action of mine, you proposed to add them, and when I pointed out this would conflict with the work I'm doing and that there were other solutions (that you already knew of) you went in full-blown "screw the SIG if I break things hard enough it will do the work my apps need" mode. [again apologies for the flame spileage I hoped answers would be limited to contructuve proposals] -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Nov 29 17:35:19 2007 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:35:19 +0100 Subject: Bunch of new Fonts added to wishlist In-Reply-To: <45501.192.54.193.53.1196089395.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <45501.192.54.193.53.1196089395.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <1196357719.3155.9.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le lundi 26 novembre 2007 ? 16:03 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a ?crit : > Le Lun 26 novembre 2007 15:25, Sarantis Paskalis a ?crit : > >> GFS Didot > >> GFS Bodoni > >> GFS Neohellenic > >> GFS Artemisia > >> GFS Theokritos > >> GFS Olga > >> GFS Didot Classic > >> GFS Porson > >> GFS Baskerville > >> GFS Bodoni Classic > >> GFS Gazis > >> GFS Solomos > >> GFS Complutum > > > > I plan to package the above some time if noone beats me to it. > > Already done but now the packages await review (half of them at least). And now the fonts have been reviewed, approved, built and pushed to Fedora repositories. That's the first set of post-SIG font packages created in a cooperative way, with a. the request first posted by a L10N group on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Triaging/L10N b. formalised by M?ir?n in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Triaging/Pipeline/WishList c. packaged by me following the guidelines FPC approved last week d. reviewed by Parag (despite a rpmlint bug that will hopefully be fixed soon https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=399871) Thanks a lot everyone, that's 13 good fonts less to package, I hope we'll see many more in the next months Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Ceci est une partie de message num?riquement sign?e URL: From fangqq at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 00:08:45 2007 From: fangqq at gmail.com (Qianqian Fang) Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 19:08:45 -0500 Subject: Request for review and advice on wqy-bitmap-fonts fontconfig settings In-Reply-To: References: <4747A7AC.2080908@gmail.com> <1195914114.5048.35.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <474F548D.9070209@gmail.com> hi I am making some progress using the syntax in SIGs/Fonts/Packaging/Fontconfig , however, there are still problems. I hope either of you can help me find out what's wrong. the new fontconfig file is attached. I used environments, and renamed the file from 85 to 61 (it does not work at 85), inserted between 60-latin and 64-nonlatin-fedora. Now, for en locale, almost perfect, except that the last two blocks did not seem to work (i.e. replacing WenQuanYi Bitmap Song by Uming when pixelsize>16 and <11). You can browse http://wqy.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/eindex.cgi?WQYTest to test. For zh locales, in addition to the above problem, under monospace (gnome-terminal), the Latin glyphs were rendered by the wqy bitmap glyphs. I expect those are rendered by Dejavu Sans Mono or Bitstream Sans Mono. in either case, the output of FC_DEBUG=4 fc-match "monospace:lang=zh-cn:pixelsize=10px" always put wqy as the first one, this is not consistent with what Firefox actually displayed under en locales. Can any of you help me to find out how to get around these problems? thank you Qianqian Qianqian Fang wrote: > hi Nicolas > > the syntax described in Fonts/Packaging/Fontconfig > seems > not sufficient > to accomplish the desired substitution rules. > > First, we want to set wqy-bitmap-fonts as the default font for > displaying Chinese characters (for example U4E00-U9FA5, and > U3400-U4D86 and some punctuations), for all aliases (sans/serif/mono), > and all locales (maybe except ja/ko), only at 10px to 16px. This can > not be done with syntax (I just > tested, it used the Latin part in wqy-bitmap-fonts in mono, and can > not use Uming/ukai for above/below 10-16px, both of these are bad). > > Second, I want the system preferred Latin fonts to display the non-CJK > part. The provided syntax, in my own opinion, can not do this either. > > You mention "no business touching non CJK locales," I don't fully > agree. The default fontconfig setup for rendering Chinese webpages > under non-zh locales is terrible. You can test this using en or other > non CJK locales, by browsing http://wenq.org , you will see a mixed > text rendered by Japanese fonts, uming, ukai and some Japanese/Korean > bitmap X core fonts. In my opinion, that is non-usable. To tell the > truth, en_US is my default locale for both office and at home. I don't > want my desktop looks non-legible by my colleagues. However, I do want > it to process Chinese properly. Most my Chinese friends working in the > US have the same set up for the same reason. The default en (or non > CJK) Chinese rendering does need to be improved (it might be more > appropriate to handle this with Fedora font committee or some sort, > but improving the situation by installing an additional font package > may not a bad solution either: those who don't like it just uninstall > this font, and everything will back to the default way). > > Last, the link that you mentioned does look promising: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Packaging/Fontconfig#local-specific-default-font-overrides > > However, my question is, how can I make sure that the preferred Latin > fonts (not necessarily Vera/Dejavu, could be something that user chose > as in Andreas's case in bug #381311) overrides the Latin part of wqy? > > Thank you and I would be glad to hear further instructions. > > Qianqian > > > On Nov 24, 2007 9:21 AM, Nicolas Mailhot > wrote: > > > Le vendredi 23 novembre 2007 ? 23:25 -0500, Qianqian Fang a ?crit : > > Hi Qianqian, > > > 4. Questions > > > > That's all I want to learn from you: do you see a robust > implementation > > of fontconfig font selection mechanism to achieve my goals above? > > if yes, how? if no, to whom should I file bug reports to? > > I'm not sure if I've assimilated all your goals, but here are some > comments on your fontconfig file: > > > > > > > You probably want ../fonts.dtd there but that's general XML fontconfig > brokenness most everyone is guilty of. > > > > > I suppose this is protected by the selectfont pattern before but I'd > avoid playing any complex substitution games when the name of an > existing on-system font is given, and only substitute either fonts > not > available at all or synthetic fonts like sans-serif and friends. > > Also, please use a simple match with a test for family inside > instead of > this pattern indirection, as documented on: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Packaging/Fontconfig > > > > > > en > > en-us > > You have no business touching non CJK locales, please remove this. If > for some reason an app does not tag text with the correct locale, > complain to its authors. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Dev/LanguageAwarenessProblem > > These two lines are probably responsible for most of your problem > reports. > > > zh-cn > > zh-tw > > zh-hk > > zh-sg > > > > > > > 11 > > > > > > 16 > > > > Are you sure of the 11-16 pixel range? > > > > > WenQuanYi Bitmap Song > > > > > > > > > [?] > > > > > 8 > > > > > > 12 > > > > Point sizes have no meaning for bitmap fonts, unless you assume a > fixed > point/pixel ratio, which is not hardware reality. Dump this match > block > it's actively evil. > > > > > WenQuanYi Bitmap Song > > > > > > > > > > > > WenQuanYi Bitmap Song > > > > > > monospace > > > > > > Bitstream Vera Sans Mono > > > > > > DejaVu LGC Sans Mono > > > > > > If you didn't touch non-CJK locales before you wouldn't need this > bandaid. Also you're assuming some other fonts are present on system > which may not be the case. Our default latin font list is dynamic and > changes from release to release, and depending on what font packages > users actually install. > > If you really want Vera or DejaVu to override WenQuanYi Bitmap Song > contents, the override should be added to the fontconfig file those > fonts ship. > > Wouldn't a simple > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Fonts/Packaging/Fontconfig#local-specific-default-font-overrides > rule with additional pixel range restriction be sufficient for your > needs? > > > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 61-wqy-bitmapsong.conf Type: text/xml Size: 1572 bytes Desc: not available URL: From behdad at behdad.org Fri Nov 30 20:03:10 2007 From: behdad at behdad.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:03:10 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: Re: Request for review and advice on wqy-bitmap-fonts fontconfig settings] Message-ID: <1196452990.11285.18.camel@behdad.behdad.org> [Resending from correct address to make it to the list...] -- behdad http://behdad.org/ "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Behdad Esfahbod Subject: Re: Request for review and advice on wqy-bitmap-fonts fontconfig settings Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:40:03 -0500 Size: 2796 URL: From behdad at behdad.org Fri Nov 30 20:04:03 2007 From: behdad at behdad.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:04:03 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: Re: Request for review and advice on wqy-bitmap-fonts fontconfig settings] Message-ID: <1196453043.14865.4.camel@behdad.behdad.org> [Resending] -- behdad http://behdad.org/ "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Behdad Esfahbod Subject: Re: Request for review and advice on wqy-bitmap-fonts fontconfig settings Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:40:04 -0500 Size: 2579 URL: From fangqq at gmail.com Fri Nov 30 23:58:24 2007 From: fangqq at gmail.com (Qianqian Fang) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:58:24 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: Re: Request for review and advice on wqy-bitmap-fonts fontconfig settings] In-Reply-To: <1196453043.14865.4.camel@behdad.behdad.org> References: <1196453043.14865.4.camel@behdad.behdad.org> Message-ID: hi Bahdad On Nov 30, 2007 3:04 PM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Behdad Esfahbod > To: Qianqian Fang > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:40:04 -0500 > Subject: Re: Request for review and advice on wqy-bitmap-fonts fontconfig > settings > On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 19:08 -0500, Qianqian Fang wrote: > > > > For zh locales, in addition to the above problem, under monospace > > (gnome-terminal), > > the Latin glyphs were rendered by the wqy bitmap glyphs. I expect > > those are rendered by Dejavu Sans Mono or Bitstream Sans Mono. > > That's because gnome-terminal, unlike Pango, doesn't refine language > tags passed to fontconfig based on the input text. That is, it always > asks fontconfig for fonts to render Chinese, even if the text is Latin. > Can be fixed in g-t for sure, but not a high prio. It's impossible to > fix this with a fontconfig config. That's what you pay when you put > multiple scripts in a single font. In 0.9.9-1, the following fontconfig config does work for gnome-terminal (for both zh or non-zh locales), could you give some explanations? WenQuanYi Bitmap Song monospace Bitstream Vera Sans Mono DejaVu LGC Sans Mono > > in either case, the output of > > FC_DEBUG=4 fc-match "monospace:lang=zh-cn:pixelsize=10px" > > always put wqy as the first one, this is not consistent with what > > Firefox actually displayed under en locales. > > What do you mean "always"? It's just one query. Of course it prefers > wqy: you are asking for a Chinese font and your config files make it > prefer wqy for Chinese. > I found a problem in my original file, I meant to put DejaVu in front of WQY bitmap Song in the "monospace" block. However, even after fixing this, wqy-bitmap song is still listed as the first one in my fc-match output (for all sizes under zh-cn locale). Doesn't the first one in the list get higher priority to be used? > > > Can any of you help me to find out how to get around these problems? > > > Got a question for you: You said wqy is a fork of bitmaps from a > TrueType font. Why not just contribute the bitmaps back to the original > font? > this bitmap fonts starts from Firefly bitmap font, which is licensed under GPL. http://www.study-area.org/apt/firefly-font/Changelog Firefly font was integrated into Uming with some verbal permission from Firefly. Uming is licensed under Arphic Public License (APL), which is not compatible with GPL. This font was significantly expanded and improved by wqy's contributors, and our Copyright committee decided to stay with GPL. Therefore, merging to Uming is not permitted by license. We also developed our own vector fonts, one of the first release is wqy-zenhei-fonts (currently in Fedora). Zenhei embedded the bitmap glyphs for about 20400 characters out of 27842 characters in wqy-bitmap-fonts (those missing are due to the lack of outline data). Comparing to uming, it only has ~16000 char containing bitmap glyphs. I did not find in your reply: do you have any thought on why the last two match blocks (replacing wqy bitmap font by Uming for large/small sizes) does not work? thanks Qianqian -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: