From nicolas_spalinger at sil.org Sat Nov 1 01:24:24 2008 From: nicolas_spalinger at sil.org (Nicolas Spalinger) Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2008 02:24:24 +0100 Subject: Beteckna fonts - new wishlist font In-Reply-To: <490B757A.9010602@fedoraproject.org> References: <490B757A.9010602@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <490BAFC8.3050804@sil.org> M?ir??n Duffy wrote: > Just filed a new wishlist font: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Beteckna_fonts > > I think for package cat's sake, surely a packager will step up? :) > > http://mihmo.livejournal.com/64301.html > > ~m I'd recommend advocating upstream to consider using something else than vanilla GPL to deal with font embedding issues: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal_considerations_for_fonts#Good_font_licenses_allow_embedding Cheers, -- Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer http://planet.open-fonts.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 252 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Nov 9 11:09:10 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 12:09:10 +0100 Subject: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc) Message-ID: <1226228950.21652.95.camel@arekh.okg> Hi, If you've received this message directly (not via a list) you're concerned by the font package changes proposed for Fedora 11: ? the changes touch one of your packages or ? the changes touch/need one component you're lead on (comps, packagedb, rpm?) Please reply to the fedora fonts list however to keep the discussion in a single place. The complete list of proposed changes is published there http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG_Fedora_11_packaging_changes All is open to discussion, and it's on a wiki page, so don't hesitate to complete/correct it. This list is pretty ambitious and requires buy-in by many people to be executed properly. Not to mention that the Fedora 11 cycle will start soon. Please do respond to the list, stating: ? your requests and comments (if any) ? if you will change your packages along those lines for Fedora 11 ? if you will allow other packagers to change your packages in your stead ? if you totally object to one part of the proposal, and why Unless there is strong opposition I will apply those changes to my own packages (and to vera and liberation if their maintainers are ok with it). However, to be effective, other packagers must change their packages too. ??? Short proposal summary: ? package renames, to fix the naming discrepancies that have crept in with the repository growth (different packagers followed different conventions) ? package splits, to offer more flexibility to spin groups and fedora users ? new comps groups, to group related fonts together (gfs fonts, sil fonts, etc) ? reminder of the ongoing fontconfig guidelines change (still waiting for fontconfig upstream to comment on) ? new packaging template and macros (to put in rpm? some other place?) ??? Rationale: ? help spins and users Wanting serif from dejavu, mono from liberation, and sans from tiresias, without dragging in all the other dejavu/liberation/tiresias fonts is a valid setup. ? help packagers and package reviewers Inconsistent repository and fuzzy rules mean package reviews drag on while the kinks are ironed out, which is not fun at all for everyone involved. Much better to have clear conventions packagers can identify before hitting review stage. ??? Proof of concept: Dejavu has been used to proof the concepts in rawhide (cf the wiki page) I hope those proposals will be agreeable to everyone. 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 9 15:25:37 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 16:25:37 +0100 Subject: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc) In-Reply-To: <385866f0811090642s7c437dd7m936c2825bf633e36@mail.gmail.com> References: <1226228950.21652.95.camel@arekh.okg> <385866f0811090642s7c437dd7m936c2825bf633e36@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1226244337.24809.19.camel@arekh.okg> Le dimanche 09 novembre 2008 ? 16:42 +0200, Muayyad AlSadi a ?crit : > regarding arabeyes-kacst-fonts > kacst fonts are not from arabeyes they are only hosted there > the fonts are by www.kacst.edu.sa/default.aspx > > rpm -qi kacst-fonts-2.0-1.fc10.noarch > ... > from the King Abdulaziz City for Science & Technology(kacst). I suppose that if kacst lets arabeyes distribute them they are not unfriendly with each other. Open Font Library likewise only re-distributes other people work, I guess the prefix in this case would mainly be there to denote some sort of oflb or arabeyes editorial work Anyway, duly noted, if more people feel karcst should not be prefixed I guess we'll make it and exception (but I'd love to have a clear simple common sense naming rule). > arabeyes produce two types of fonts: core and decorative and I packed > them for ojuba, here is the .spec file (attached) Some (but not all) of those fonts are currently in review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461139 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462711 You can either work with the current would-be packager (and become co-maintainer) or submit a competing proposal (some reviews never go anywhere, unfortunately, don't wait for others to do the stuff you care about). The path to get a font in Fedora is documented there: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle We mostly ask packagers to adhere as closely as possible to the official spec template, create a wiki page that can be referenced in release notes, and avoid bundling different fonts in a single package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Annotated_fonts_spec_template When there is little deviation from guidelines reviews tend to be quick (unfortunately the reverse is also true) > I would love to maintain it for the fedora New font packagers are always welcome! Your spec is not acceptable as-is, but if you're motivated I think you'll find creating guidelines-conformant spec files is not too hard. 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 9 16:53:55 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 17:53:55 +0100 Subject: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc) In-Reply-To: <1226246640.7388.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1226228950.21652.95.camel@arekh.okg> <1226246640.7388.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1226249635.25621.34.camel@arekh.okg> Le dimanche 09 novembre 2008 ? 11:04 -0500, Matthias Clasen a ?crit : > On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 12:09 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > > ? package splits, to offer more flexibility to spin groups and fedora > > users > > Can I voice some doubt about the usefulness of this ? Sure, the whole discussion is open. > Going to your wiki > page, I read that dejavu has been split into ~10 subpackages. Actually, it has been split from 3 packages (2 full + 1 lgc) to 6 font packages (3 full + 3 lgc) + 1 common package and 2 compat packages which are only used for upgrades (and will be killed in F12). The font packages still weight more than your average package. And I'd be happy to get rid of the lgc packages, except that's pitchfork land, so if I had to maintain them they should follow the same rules as dejavu-full. > If this > happens to all font packages, it will blow up metadata and package lists > and make it harder for users to install a reasonable set of fonts. I don't think so, packages with a clear content are more user-friendly than packages that mix good and bad stuff. And the item users recognize is the font family name they get in font lists. I've seen all too many times users ask what package provides a particular font, because it was hidden in a big bundle. One package per font family means we can get packagekit font auto-install to work (the main problem when it was last discussed was how to handle fonts with different capabilities in a single package) instead of having @font-face install proprietary blobs on use systems. Also it means that when we add support to a new script spins only need to add *one* small package to their default package list instead of big packages that weight 10s of megs. (for example there is enough size pressure on defaults we're seriously considering to pass on korean bold because the space is already taken by other packages) As written in the wiki page we've tried to let maintainers find the "best" split and it ended up a mess, one package per font family is a clear rule which is easy to understand by everyone, and will even result in subpackage consolidation in a few cases. > There > are real costs associated with overly fine-grained package splits. Have > you really weighted to pros and cons of this idea ? The use case you > cite > > Wanting serif from dejavu, mono from liberation, and sans from > tiresias, without dragging in all the other dejavu/liberation/tiresias > fonts is a valid setup. > > Doesn't really strike me as worth supporting... Another use-case is indic fonts. If we had a big monolithic lohit package malayam users would complain. Because it is split we can have one set of defaults taken from lohit, and another from smc, without requiring full install of both of them. And which font is default at any time is a policy decision, having to rework package split each time one font gets better than another is not a good use of resources. Lastly, multi-font packages have all too often turned into a licensing mess, because fonts are usually not created together and bundling fonts often means bundling licenses. tetex is a sorry example of what happens when you start creating font collections. And once you've decided you want to split collections the only simple splitting rule everyone understands without running circles in package reviews is splitting along font family lines. (I'm sorry if I need to insist on clear rules for new packagers. I've just had too many painful font reviews lately) -- 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 kevin.kofler at chello.at Sun Nov 9 18:18:04 2008 From: kevin.kofler at chello.at (Kevin Kofler) Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 19:18:04 +0100 Subject: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc) References: <1226228950.21652.95.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > The complete list of proposed changes is published there > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG_Fedora_11_packaging_changes > ghostscript-fonts > Needs to be split but at the same time finding OTF replacements would > probably be better Please don't forget that GhostScript's URW fonts are metrically compatible with the standard PostScript fonts and even look similar to them. Please don't drop them without an equivalent (i.e. also metrically and visually compatible with the standard PostScript fonts) replacement! Kevin Kofler From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Nov 9 20:43:29 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:43:29 +0100 Subject: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc) In-Reply-To: References: <1226228950.21652.95.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <1226263409.26223.3.camel@arekh.okg> Le dimanche 09 novembre 2008 ? 19:18 +0100, Kevin Kofler a ?crit : > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > The complete list of proposed changes is published there > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG_Fedora_11_packaging_changes > > > ghostscript-fonts > > Needs to be split but at the same time finding OTF replacements would > > probably be better > > Please don't forget that GhostScript's URW fonts are metrically compatible > with the standard PostScript fonts and even look similar to them. Please > don't drop them without an equivalent (i.e. also metrically and visually > compatible with the standard PostScript fonts) replacement! Reworks of the Ghostscript fonts exist (ie TEX Gyre, but there are probably others). They should have kept the original style and metrics (maybe fixed hinting and kerning). The only reason they've not been merged yet is a legal mess. -- 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 Sun Nov 9 23:44:37 2008 From: fangqq at gmail.com (Qianqian Fang) Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 18:44:37 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc) In-Reply-To: <1226228950.21652.95.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1226228950.21652.95.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <491775E5.70901@gmail.com> One of the font packages that I am maintaining, wqy-zenhei-fonts, recently added a monospaced face (WenQuanYi Zen Hei Mono), via ttc. Because the original sans face and the mono face co-exist in the same font file (almost the same size as single face ones), so I guess there is no need to worry about splitting. Also, android SDK was released in Oct. It contains a very nice unicode font, Droid Sans Fallback (containing 14000 Hanzi glyphs), and is licensed under Apache2 license. I am now working on some extension of this font and hopefully make another WenQuanYi font package for F11. Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Hi, > > If you've received this message directly (not via a list) you're > concerned by the font package changes proposed for Fedora 11: > ? the changes touch one of your packages or > ? the changes touch/need one component you're lead on (comps, packagedb, > rpm?) > > Please reply to the fedora fonts list however to keep the discussion in > a single place. > > The complete list of proposed changes is published there > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG_Fedora_11_packaging_changes > > All is open to discussion, and it's on a wiki page, so don't hesitate to > complete/correct it. > > This list is pretty ambitious and requires buy-in by many people to be > executed properly. Not to mention that the Fedora 11 cycle will start > soon. Please do respond to the list, stating: > ? your requests and comments (if any) > ? if you will change your packages along those lines for Fedora 11 > ? if you will allow other packagers to change your packages in your > stead > ? if you totally object to one part of the proposal, and why > > Unless there is strong opposition I will apply those changes to my own > packages (and to vera and liberation if their maintainers are ok with > it). However, to be effective, other packagers must change their > packages too. > > > ??? Short proposal summary: > > ? package renames, to fix the naming discrepancies that have crept in > with the repository growth > (different packagers followed different conventions) > > ? package splits, to offer more flexibility to spin groups and fedora > users > > ? new comps groups, to group related fonts together > (gfs fonts, sil fonts, etc) > > ? reminder of the ongoing fontconfig guidelines change > (still waiting for fontconfig upstream to comment on) > > ? new packaging template and macros > (to put in rpm? some other place?) > > > ??? Rationale: > > ? help spins and users > > Wanting serif from dejavu, mono from liberation, and sans from tiresias, > without dragging in all the other dejavu/liberation/tiresias fonts is a > valid setup. > > ? help packagers and package reviewers > > Inconsistent repository and fuzzy rules mean package reviews drag on > while the kinks are ironed out, which is not fun at all for everyone > involved. Much better to have clear conventions packagers can identify > before hitting review stage. > > > ??? Proof of concept: > > Dejavu has been used to proof the concepts in rawhide (cf the wiki page) > > > I hope those proposals will be agreeable to everyone. > > Regards, > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-fonts-list mailing list > Fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list > From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Nov 10 08:03:08 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:03:08 +0100 Subject: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc) In-Reply-To: <491775E5.70901@gmail.com> References: <1226228950.21652.95.camel@arekh.okg> <491775E5.70901@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1226304188.31640.6.camel@arekh.okg> Le dimanche 09 novembre 2008 ? 18:44 -0500, Qianqian Fang a ?crit : > One of the font packages that I am maintaining, wqy-zenhei-fonts, recently > added a monospaced face (WenQuanYi Zen Hei Mono), via ttc. Because > the original sans face and the mono face co-exist in the same font file > (almost the same size as single face ones), so I guess there is no need to > worry about splitting. Yes, ttc files are an obvious exception. You just have to hope the result is small enough no one will feel like blacklisting it to save cd space. Hopefully the 'different capabilities' risk won't apply in this case and packagekit will be able to manage them anyway. > Also, android SDK was released in Oct. It contains a very nice unicode > font, Droid Sans Fallback (containing 14000 Hanzi glyphs), and is licensed > under Apache2 license. I am now working on some extension of this font > and hopefully make another WenQuanYi font package for F11. Be very careful about Droid, the general SDK license file says it's Apache2, but the bundled fonts have metadata that claims otherwise, and I'd be against merging Droid or any derivative in Fedora before Google clarifies the situation (and in typical Google they don't talk to others about problems). -- 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 Mon Nov 10 14:55:58 2008 From: fangqq at gmail.com (Qianqian Fang) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:55:58 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc) In-Reply-To: <1226304188.31640.6.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1226228950.21652.95.camel@arekh.okg> <491775E5.70901@gmail.com> <1226304188.31640.6.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <49184B7E.8020701@gmail.com> this is what I got from android's mailing list: http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss/browse_thread/thread/3c60867cab66e23d/ab69c3174b63ca4c?#ab69c3174b63ca4c the replier is one of the google guys. I am not sure if this means we've got it clarified. Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Be very careful about Droid, the general SDK license file says it's > Apache2, but the bundled fonts have metadata that claims otherwise, and > I'd be against merging Droid or any derivative in Fedora before Google > clarifies the situation (and in typical Google they don't talk to others > about problems). > > From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Nov 10 16:11:07 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:11:07 +0100 Subject: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc) In-Reply-To: <49184B7E.8020701@gmail.com> References: <1226228950.21652.95.camel@arekh.okg> <491775E5.70901@gmail.com> <1226304188.31640.6.camel@arekh.okg> <49184B7E.8020701@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1226333467.17989.4.camel@arekh.okg> Le lundi 10 novembre 2008 ? 09:55 -0500, Qianqian Fang a ?crit : > this is what I got from android's mailing list: > > http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss/browse_thread/thread/3c60867cab66e23d/ab69c3174b63ca4c?#ab69c3174b63ca4c > > the replier is one of the google guys. I am not sure if this > means we've got it clarified. Unfortunately, I think the licensing in the font metadata says otherwise, and I'm not sure if we want to rely on a google group message. Has the person replying you authority within android? -- 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 Mon Nov 10 16:17:24 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:17:24 +0100 Subject: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc) In-Reply-To: <1226228950.21652.95.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1226228950.21652.95.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <1226333844.17989.9.camel@arekh.okg> Le dimanche 09 novembre 2008 ? 12:09 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a ?crit : > ??? Proof of concept: > > Dejavu has been used to proof the concepts in rawhide (cf the wiki page) To proof it some more I've separated the common macro, spec templates and directory definitions in a separate package, then modified three font packages to use it: ? dejavu: multiple font families, multiple fontconfig files, ? theokritos: single font family and fontconfig file, ? vera: multiple font families and no config file It all works with the same macros, factors out the magic and reduces average font package complexity. (and hopefully the number of mistakes on has to correct in review) What do people think of it ? http://nim.fedorapeople.org/rpm-fonts/ 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 Mon Nov 10 16:36:57 2008 From: fangqq at gmail.com (Qianqian Fang) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:36:57 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc) In-Reply-To: <1226333467.17989.4.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1226228950.21652.95.camel@arekh.okg> <491775E5.70901@gmail.com> <1226304188.31640.6.camel@arekh.okg> <49184B7E.8020701@gmail.com> <1226333467.17989.4.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <49186329.1000603@gmail.com> Let me go ask him for more details and get back to this list. If anyone in the list happen to know more about this, I would also be happen to learn from you. Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le lundi 10 novembre 2008 ? 09:55 -0500, Qianqian Fang a ?crit : > >> this is what I got from android's mailing list: >> >> http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss/browse_thread/thread/3c60867cab66e23d/ab69c3174b63ca4c?#ab69c3174b63ca4c >> >> the replier is one of the google guys. I am not sure if this >> means we've got it clarified. >> > > Unfortunately, I think the licensing in the font metadata says > otherwise, and I'm not sure if we want to rely on a google group > message. Has the person replying you authority within android? > > From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Nov 10 16:45:06 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:45:06 +0100 Subject: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc) In-Reply-To: <49186329.1000603@gmail.com> References: <1226228950.21652.95.camel@arekh.okg> <491775E5.70901@gmail.com> <1226304188.31640.6.camel@arekh.okg> <49184B7E.8020701@gmail.com> <1226333467.17989.4.camel@arekh.okg> <49186329.1000603@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1226335506.17989.13.camel@arekh.okg> Le lundi 10 novembre 2008 ? 11:36 -0500, Qianqian Fang a ?crit : > Let me go ask him for more details and get back to this list. If anyone in > the list happen to know more about this, I would also be happen to learn > from you. It would be best if the android folks changed the metadata of their fonts to say "apache 2 license" or at least referenced clearly the droid fonts in the text file that states licensing in the archive they release the fonts in. -- 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 notting at redhat.com Mon Nov 10 17:10:35 2008 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:10:35 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc) In-Reply-To: <1226228950.21652.95.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1226228950.21652.95.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <20081110171035.GG8850@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net) said: > ? package splits, to offer more flexibility to spin groups and fedora > users ... > ? help spins and users > > Wanting serif from dejavu, mono from liberation, and sans from tiresias, > without dragging in all the other dejavu/liberation/tiresias fonts is a > valid setup. This sounds like severe overkill. If they want different scripts, why not just adjust their fontconfig configuration? Realistically, I can't think of an example where we'd want to ship dejavu for one script but not another. Do you have one? It's not as if the split would save that much space on any normal install. Bill From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Nov 10 17:53:52 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:53:52 +0100 Subject: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc) In-Reply-To: <20081110171035.GG8850@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <1226228950.21652.95.camel@arekh.okg> <20081110171035.GG8850@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1226339632.17989.28.camel@arekh.okg> Le lundi 10 novembre 2008 ? 12:10 -0500, Bill Nottingham a ?crit : > Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net) said: > > ? package splits, to offer more flexibility to spin groups and fedora > > users > > ... > > ? help spins and users > > > > Wanting serif from dejavu, mono from liberation, and sans from tiresias, > > without dragging in all the other dejavu/liberation/tiresias fonts is a > > valid setup. > > This sounds like severe overkill. If they want different scripts, why > not just adjust their fontconfig configuration? Realistically, I can't > think of an example where we'd want to ship dejavu for one script but > not another. Do you have one? Actually dejavu is a bad example because everyone wants it. I only did it because it's a complex and complete package that could stress the macros (also because it's my main package). But for the other font packages, it's very common to want only one font in a collection (for example all our artists use one mgopen font but not the others, we only need one font installed by default for each script to support it in the default install, etc). Also that makes dynamic font installation possible: when a document or web page references a font you can just install the corresponding package and not drag megs of unrelated fonts that just happened to be released by the same entity. -- 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 Mon Nov 10 17:55:52 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:55:52 +0100 Subject: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc) Message-ID: <1226339752.17989.29.camel@arekh.okg> Le lundi 10 novembre 2008 ? 12:10 -0500, Bill Nottingham a ?crit : > Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net) said: > > ? package splits, to offer more flexibility to spin groups and fedora > > users > > ... > > ? help spins and users > > > > Wanting serif from dejavu, mono from liberation, and sans from tiresias, > > without dragging in all the other dejavu/liberation/tiresias fonts is a > > valid setup. > > This sounds like severe overkill. If they want different scripts, why > not just adjust their fontconfig configuration? Realistically, I can't > think of an example where we'd want to ship dejavu for one script but > not another. Do you have one? Actually dejavu is a bad example because everyone wants it. I only did it because it's a complex and complete package that could stress the macros (also because it's my main package). But for the other font packages, it's very common to want only one font in a collection (for example all our artists use one mgopen font but not the others, we only need one font installed by default for each script to support it in the default install, etc). Also that makes dynamic font installation possible: when a document or web page references a font you can just install the corresponding package and not drag megs of unrelated fonts that just happened to be released by the same entity. -- 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 10 17:59:58 2008 From: behdad at behdad.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:59:58 +0100 Subject: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc) In-Reply-To: <1226339632.17989.28.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1226228950.21652.95.camel@arekh.okg> <20081110171035.GG8850@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1226339632.17989.28.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <4918769E.2090404@behdad.org> Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le lundi 10 novembre 2008 ? 12:10 -0500, Bill Nottingham a ?crit : >> Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net) said: >>> ? package splits, to offer more flexibility to spin groups and fedora >>> users >> ... >>> ? help spins and users >>> >>> Wanting serif from dejavu, mono from liberation, and sans from tiresias, >>> without dragging in all the other dejavu/liberation/tiresias fonts is a >>> valid setup. >> This sounds like severe overkill. If they want different scripts, why >> not just adjust their fontconfig configuration? Realistically, I can't >> think of an example where we'd want to ship dejavu for one script but >> not another. Do you have one? I have to agree with Bill here. It's overkill. Also note that, the more font packages we have, means the more font directories we have (unless we stuff fonts from different packages in the same dir), which means more work to do at each application startup (we mmap() one cache file per font dir). On my system any application mmap's 150 cache files right now. Don't make that 150. The cost is nonnegligible; on the order of 1ms per cache file. behdad > Actually dejavu is a bad example because everyone wants it. I only did > it because it's a complex and complete package that could stress the > macros (also because it's my main package). > > But for the other font packages, it's very common to want only one font > in a collection (for example all our artists use one mgopen font but not > the others, we only need one font installed by default for each script > to support it in the default install, etc). > > Also that makes dynamic font installation possible: when a document or > web page references a font you can just install the corresponding > package and not drag megs of unrelated fonts that just happened to be > released by the same entity. > > From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Nov 10 18:22:05 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:22:05 +0100 Subject: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc) In-Reply-To: <4918769E.2090404@behdad.org> References: <1226228950.21652.95.camel@arekh.okg> <20081110171035.GG8850@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1226339632.17989.28.camel@arekh.okg> <4918769E.2090404@behdad.org> Message-ID: <1226341325.22664.3.camel@arekh.okg> Le lundi 10 novembre 2008 ? 18:59 +0100, Behdad Esfahbod a ?crit : > Also note that, the more font > packages we have, means the more font directories we have (unless we stuff > fonts from different packages in the same dir), Right now separate subpackages share the same directory. Precisely because the cost of a fc-cache run is smaller than multiplying font directories (and the splitting macros even enforce that which was not the case of all the manual packaging we did before). So on this front, controlled macroized split will make the situation better, not worse. -- 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 notting at redhat.com Mon Nov 10 20:35:34 2008 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:35:34 -0500 Subject: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc) In-Reply-To: <1226339632.17989.28.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1226228950.21652.95.camel@arekh.okg> <20081110171035.GG8850@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> <1226339632.17989.28.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <20081110203534.GC12640@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net) said: > > This sounds like severe overkill. If they want different scripts, why > > not just adjust their fontconfig configuration? Realistically, I can't > > think of an example where we'd want to ship dejavu for one script but > > not another. Do you have one? > > Actually dejavu is a bad example because everyone wants it. I only did > it because it's a complex and complete package that could stress the > macros (also because it's my main package). Then we shouldn't build it as split... Bill From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Nov 10 22:09:08 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 23:09:08 +0100 Subject: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc) In-Reply-To: <1226339752.17989.29.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1226339752.17989.29.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <1226354948.26647.4.camel@arekh.okg> After a long irc discussion with Bill Nottingham, I've reworked the package splitting rule in: ? When packaging an upstream font archive that contains different font families (different font names in GUI font dropdowns), one must split each font family in a separate subpackage. Each subpackage must include every upstream-provided font face (bold, italic, condensed, oblique?) of the corresponding font family. As a special exception a packager is allowed to optionally keep sans/serif/mono latin families of the same name together. When upstream releases separate font archives, just create separate packages. ? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG_Fedora_11_packaging_changes#Split_big_font_packages_on_font_family_lines Practically, that would make splitting (or not) Bitstream Vera, Liberation and GNU FreeFont a packager per packager decision. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot That only makes 3 packagers to bribe! -------------- 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 petersen at redhat.com Mon Nov 10 23:51:31 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:51:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Beteckna fonts - new wishlist font In-Reply-To: <490B757A.9010602@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1147990427.1554131226361091056.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Thanks M?ir??n, > Just filed a new wishlist font: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Beteckna_fonts Cool - it would be even better to file for a package review. :) Jens From petersen at redhat.com Mon Nov 10 23:58:02 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:58:02 -0500 (EST) Subject: [LONG] The fonts SIG irregular status report In-Reply-To: <1225055984.5093.1.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <606741161.1554531226361482904.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> > Actually we have 57 since Behdad requested FersiWeb fonts and no one I should not be that hard really to generate a script to generate a skeleton spec file for any given font . I know some packaging people frown on automated packaging but this might help lower the barrier to font packaging for which creating rpm's is really quite easy compared to general packaging. Such spec files would still need to go through being tweaked and polished during review of course but it would make it easier for people to get started I think. Perhaps it is something we (Fonts SIG) should consider working on? Jens From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Nov 11 09:02:52 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:02:52 +0100 Subject: [LONG] The fonts SIG irregular status report In-Reply-To: <606741161.1554531226361482904.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> References: <606741161.1554531226361482904.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1226394172.26647.19.camel@arekh.okg> Le lundi 10 novembre 2008 ? 18:58 -0500, Jens Petersen a ?crit : > > Actually we have 57 since Behdad requested FersiWeb fonts and no one > > I should not be that hard really to generate a script to generate a > skeleton spec file for any given font . > > I know some packaging people frown on automated packaging but this > might help lower the barrier to font packaging for which creating > rpm's is really quite easy compared to general packaging. Such spec > files would still need to go through being tweaked and polished during > review of course but it would make it easier for people to get started > I think. Since I do a lot of font reviews I'd like the polishing to be done before a spec hit bugzilla :) Anyway, with the experience of recent font reviews (un fonts in particular), I've written some macros and spec templates that push all the fc-cache scriptlet magic out of specfiles and should be a little easier for new maintainers to work on. They still require a human to 1. decide which font file goes in which (sub)package 2. decide which fontconfig generic family to associate with each font 3. write summaries and descriptions 4. do some legal auditing Quite frankly, appart from 1. that could possibly be automated by writing some script that uses fontconfig to tell people what font files declare the same font family, I don't see how we could go much farther (maybe generating the wiki page when it does not exist?) Please review the files at http://nim.fedorapeople.org/rpm-fonts/ and in particular the rpm-fonts package and how it is used by the other packages. I don't like the fontconfig file symlinking stuff much, if you can find a simpler way to express it I'd be happy to change it. > Perhaps it is something we (Fonts SIG) should consider working on? I don't really know what parts new font packagers find hardest, I'd love to see some feedback on the list. As I wrote before, I don't think we could win a lot by automating. But anyway, it's Fedora and everyone is free to work on what he likes, so if you think automating would help far from me to stop you :p I wouldn't mind being proven wrong. 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 Tue Nov 11 13:01:53 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 14:01:53 +0100 Subject: Fedora 11 font package changes proposal (renames, splits, etc) In-Reply-To: <1226333844.17989.9.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1226228950.21652.95.camel@arekh.okg> <1226333844.17989.9.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <1226408513.8833.3.camel@arekh.okg> Le lundi 10 novembre 2008 ? 17:17 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a ?crit : > To proof it some more I've separated the common macro, spec templates > and directory definitions in a separate package, then modified three > font packages to use it: > ? dejavu: multiple font families, multiple fontconfig files, > ? theokritos: single font family and fontconfig file, > ? vera: multiple font families and no config file > > It all works with the same macros, factors out the magic and reduces > average font package complexity. > > (and hopefully the number of mistakes on has to correct in review) > > What do people think of it ? > > http://nim.fedorapeople.org/rpm-fonts/ I've released a new version with some fontconfig templates added in. I hope Behdad will find some time to review them. -- 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 fedoraproject.org Tue Nov 11 14:32:11 2008 From: duffy at fedoraproject.org (=?UTF-8?B?TcOhaXLDrcKtbiBEdWZmeQ==?=) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 09:32:11 -0500 Subject: Beteckna fonts - new wishlist font In-Reply-To: <1147990427.1554131226361091056.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> References: <1147990427.1554131226361091056.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <4919976B.6090103@fedoraproject.org> Jens Petersen wrote: > Thanks M?ir??n, > >> Just filed a new wishlist font: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Beteckna_fonts > > Cool - it would be even better to file for a package review. :) Not ready for that yet, though. ~m From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Nov 12 12:28:50 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:28:50 +0100 (CET) Subject: Fwd: Gnu FreeFont -- new release In-Reply-To: <1560597672.20071221449862507.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.ph x2.redhat.com> References: <1560597672.20071221449862507.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: Le Lun 15 septembre 2008 04:37, Jens Petersen a ?crit : > I am not really familiar with this font, but since it covers quite a > number of scripts it looks interesting at least, so forwarding for any > comments? Would it be useful to include in Fedora? I think it's already in fedora in the "freefont" package, but this package needs to be updated and reworked to conform to guidelines freefont has a poor reputation in font design circles, where many people consider the project was too quick to add glyphs that were not always of the best quality. -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Nov 12 22:06:29 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:06:29 +0100 Subject: New font-design group in Fedora 11 Message-ID: <1226527589.25306.3.camel@arekh.okg> Hi, At the demand of the free/open font community, a font-design group has been added to Fedora 11 comps (may still find a way to slip it in Fedora 10 post-release). You may add your font-related tools there now. Comments/corrections are welcome. http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/comps/comps-f11.xml.in?r1=1.6&r2=1.7 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 dfeustel at mindspring.com Thu Nov 13 14:26:41 2008 From: dfeustel at mindspring.com (Dave Feustel) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:26:41 -0500 Subject: Font Questions Message-ID: <200811131426.mADEQfZl029122@mx3.redhat.com> Is there any difference between using "iso" and ISO" in font names? How can I tell whether font ISO-8859-1 is installed or not? If iso-8859-1 is not installed (which seems to be the case since email specifying that iso-8859-1 is used do not display all character codes as glyphs (in mutt Mutt 1.5.18 (2008-05-17) ) ), from where do I download the font and how do I install it. Thanks Very Much. From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Nov 13 15:18:56 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:18:56 +0100 (CET) Subject: Font Questions In-Reply-To: <200811131426.mADEQfZl029122@mx3.redhat.com> References: <200811131426.mADEQfZl029122@mx3.redhat.com> Message-ID: Le Jeu 13 novembre 2008 15:26, Dave Feustel a ?crit : > > Is there any difference between using "iso" and ISO" in font names? > > How can I tell whether font ISO-8859-1 is installed or not? ISO-8859-1 is not a font it's an encoding. Depending on the software, different font systems will be used to display text in this encoding : 1. non-X console : kbd fonts 2. legacy X application : so-called X core fonts 3. anything relatively recent (CLI app in GUI terminal, GUI app) : fontconfig You seem to be in case 1 or 2. I seriously advice moving to 3 if you don't want to spend a lot of time fighting legacy systems few people maintain nowadays. -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Nov 16 11:25:44 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 12:25:44 +0100 Subject: Desktop team brainstorming Message-ID: <1226834744.18036.3.camel@arekh.okg> Hi, The Fedora Desktop team is collecting suggestions for improvements that could be made to the desktop software stack during the Fedora 11 cycle. One of the identified themes is fonts handling: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Desktop/Whiteboards/BetterFonts Please check and complete this wiki page. Best 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 Mon Nov 17 18:44:29 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:44:29 +0100 Subject: conf.avail, rpmlint and the FHS In-Reply-To: <1225052998.4417.22.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1225052998.4417.22.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <1226947469.12295.0.camel@arekh.okg> Ping? Le dimanche 26 octobre 2008 ? 21:30 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a ?crit : > Hi all, > > When conf.avail was introduced in fontconfig we at Fedora mostly ignored > it and let font packages install their fontconfig rules directly in > conf.d > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FontsSpecTemplate > (the exception being the fontconfig package itself who perforce followed > the new conventions). > > Recent events made me revisit this point and try to heal the rift > between fontconfig and font packages by following common conventions. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_spec_template_correction_(fontconfig) > > In the course of the examination of this guideline change proposal, > however, it was identified that conf.avail as currently designed causes > our rpmlint package sanity check tool to emit errors. Those errors were > ok for Behdad to ignore, but really not ok for general packaging > guidelines we want to put into newbie packager hands. > > The core reason are that since we deploy policy through those fontconfig > files, we absolutely do not want users to change them (they're free to > un-reference the files in conf.d, or write their own fontconfig rules in > different files, but we instruct rpm to stomp on old versions of our > files on updates). Since we mark those files as non-modifiable (%config > and not %config(noreplace) in rpm speak) rpmlint considers them as data, > not configuration, and complains of their location under /etc. > > After thinking a bit about it I feel rpmlint is right ? since we don't > let users modify our fontconfig files they're not dynamic configuration, > just static data users can choose to activate or not. > > We could of course add an exception in rpmlint just for conf.avail, but > I'd rather have fontconfig be fixed to follow more closely the FHS. > Exceptions ultimately pile on till you have a lot of cruft to clean up > which is not my definition of fun. > > Can conf.avail and its contents be moved in /usr/share/something in the > next version of fontconfig? > > See also: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes/20081021 > > 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 petersen at redhat.com Tue Nov 18 08:08:03 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 03:08:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [LONG] The fonts SIG irregular status report In-Reply-To: <1226394172.26647.19.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <591311043.457331226995683132.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> > As I wrote before, I don't think we could win a lot by automating. Well I tend to agree now: a good set of templates and rpm macros seems the right way to go. Jens From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Nov 18 10:11:12 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:11:12 +0100 (CET) Subject: [LONG] The fonts SIG irregular status report In-Reply-To: <1226997153.3752.572.camel@beck.corsepiu.local> References: <591311043.457331226995683132.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <1226997153.3752.572.camel@beck.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <663f4d4e204db4fa888f52000cf0f47c.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Le Mar 18 novembre 2008 09:32, Ralf Corsepius a ?crit : > > On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 03:08 -0500, Jens Petersen wrote: >> > As I wrote before, I don't think we could win a lot by automating. >> >> Well I tend to agree now: a good set of templates and rpm macros >> seems the right way to go. > No, rpm macros are the road to ruin a distro. > > Once they are used in a distro, they impose major portability issues > and are close to impossible to get rid. Unfortunately, deploying fonts requires scriptlets to manage thefontconfig cache, font packages are often huge and need splitting, and sriplets + subpackages = boom without a minimal automation. Please review http://nim.fedorapeople.org/rpm-fonts/rpm-fonts-1.8-1.fc11.src.rpm and the other files in this directory, and propose ameliorations before we make it the backbone of our Fedora 11 font packages. -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Nov 18 10:46:49 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:46:49 +0100 (CET) Subject: [LONG] The fonts SIG irregular status report In-Reply-To: <1227004431.3752.579.camel@beck.corsepiu.local> References: <591311043.457331226995683132.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <1226997153.3752.572.camel@beck.corsepiu.local> <663f4d4e204db4fa888f52000cf0f47c.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <1227004431.3752.579.camel@beck.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <43859aca04f6673c579c06b4dee9d37b.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Le Mar 18 novembre 2008 11:33, Ralf Corsepius a ?crit : > > On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 11:11 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> >> Le Mar 18 novembre 2008 09:32, Ralf Corsepius a ?crit : >> Please review >> http://nim.fedorapeople.org/rpm-fonts/rpm-fonts-1.8-1.fc11.src.rpm >> and the other files in this directory, and propose ameliorations >> before we make it the backbone of our Fedora 11 font packages. > I will vote against this proposal and this package. > > Rationale: > All these macros do is causing further pollution of the rpm macros, > break many details (try rpmbuild --define '_datadir /opt/foo' and add > further cross distro-portability issues (Consider RHEL3 or rpm's from > other distros). > > May be you recall the issues with Mandrake / Mandriva macros and with > SuSE-macros, now you seem to be wanting to conduct Fedora into the > same direction. What I've seen last year is: 1. packagers reinvent those independently (usually with bugs), so there's no drawbacks and lots of benefits in providing them a clean audited centralised version instead. 2. when you push too much logic in individual packages, this logic is not updated (when fc-cache arguments change) 3. the current guidelines are not easy enough for most packagers. If you don't agree with my solution to those problems please be constructive and propose another better one. -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Nov 18 10:58:00 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:58:00 +0100 (CET) Subject: [LONG] The fonts SIG irregular status report In-Reply-To: <43859aca04f6673c579c06b4dee9d37b.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> References: <591311043.457331226995683132.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <1226997153.3752.572.camel@beck.corsepiu.local> <663f4d4e204db4fa888f52000cf0f47c.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <1227004431.3752.579.camel@beck.corsepiu.local> <43859aca04f6673c579c06b4dee9d37b.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <8e893a7933fbae5ce0e1e394c9bf6823.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> > Le Mar 18 novembre 2008 11:33, Ralf Corsepius a ?crit : >> I will vote against this proposal and this package. >> >> Rationale: >> All these macros do is causing further pollution of the rpm macros, >> break many details (try rpmbuild --define '_datadir /opt/foo' and >> add >> further cross distro-portability issues (Consider RHEL3 or rpm's >> from >> other distros). >> >> May be you recall the issues with Mandrake / Mandriva macros and >> with >> SuSE-macros, now you seem to be wanting to conduct Fedora into the >> same direction. Also if you would just look at it you'd see the whole thing is totally autonomous from the rpm package, and could be deployed as-is on other distributions releases (or plain other distributions) Taking of course into account all fontconfig versions are not equal and one needs to adapt the base package to the capabilities of the fontconfig provided by the distro he targets. -- Nicolas Mailhot From behdad at behdad.org Tue Nov 18 12:25:37 2008 From: behdad at behdad.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 07:25:37 -0500 Subject: conf.avail, rpmlint and the FHS In-Reply-To: <1226947469.12295.0.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1225052998.4417.22.camel@arekh.okg> <1226947469.12295.0.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <4922B441.7060409@behdad.org> I'm fine with this change. Next fontconfig release should happen sometime this winter I guess. I'll make this change in my tree that I will then make available to Keith for review and release. behdad Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Ping? > > Le dimanche 26 octobre 2008 ? 21:30 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a ?crit : >> Hi all, >> >> When conf.avail was introduced in fontconfig we at Fedora mostly ignored >> it and let font packages install their fontconfig rules directly in >> conf.d >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/FontsSpecTemplate >> (the exception being the fontconfig package itself who perforce followed >> the new conventions). >> >> Recent events made me revisit this point and try to heal the rift >> between fontconfig and font packages by following common conventions. >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_spec_template_correction_(fontconfig) >> >> In the course of the examination of this guideline change proposal, >> however, it was identified that conf.avail as currently designed causes >> our rpmlint package sanity check tool to emit errors. Those errors were >> ok for Behdad to ignore, but really not ok for general packaging >> guidelines we want to put into newbie packager hands. >> >> The core reason are that since we deploy policy through those fontconfig >> files, we absolutely do not want users to change them (they're free to >> un-reference the files in conf.d, or write their own fontconfig rules in >> different files, but we instruct rpm to stomp on old versions of our >> files on updates). Since we mark those files as non-modifiable (%config >> and not %config(noreplace) in rpm speak) rpmlint considers them as data, >> not configuration, and complains of their location under /etc. >> >> After thinking a bit about it I feel rpmlint is right ? since we don't >> let users modify our fontconfig files they're not dynamic configuration, >> just static data users can choose to activate or not. >> >> We could of course add an exception in rpmlint just for conf.avail, but >> I'd rather have fontconfig be fixed to follow more closely the FHS. >> Exceptions ultimately pile on till you have a lot of cruft to clean up >> which is not my definition of fun. >> >> Can conf.avail and its contents be moved in /usr/share/something in the >> next version of fontconfig? >> >> See also: >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes/20081021 >> >> Regards, >> From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Nov 18 22:07:04 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:07:04 +0100 Subject: New Fedora fonts packaging guidelines Message-ID: <1227046025.29090.7.camel@arekh.okg> Hi, After several public and private discussions, I'm now formally proposing http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation for approval by FPC. Behdad Esfahbod and Jens Petersen have kindly reviewed this proposal and agree with it. Best 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 petersen at redhat.com Wed Nov 19 04:04:03 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:04:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Fontconfig] conf.avail, rpmlint and the FHS In-Reply-To: <4922B441.7060409@behdad.org> Message-ID: <1224022912.862671227067443792.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> > >> Can conf.avail and its contents be moved in /usr/share/something in the > >> next version of fontconfig? So to make the discussion more concrete what is the suggested new path? /usr/share/fonts/conf.avail/ or /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/ or ? Jens From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Nov 19 05:27:08 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:27:08 +0100 Subject: [Fontconfig] conf.avail, rpmlint and the FHS In-Reply-To: <1224022912.862671227067443792.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> References: <1224022912.862671227067443792.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1227072428.2241.1.camel@arekh.okg> Le mardi 18 novembre 2008 ? 23:04 -0500, Jens Petersen a ?crit : > > >> Can conf.avail and its contents be moved in /usr/share/something in the > > >> next version of fontconfig? > > So to make the discussion more concrete what is the suggested new path? > /usr/share/fonts/conf.avail/ or /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/ or ? (19:02:33) nim-nim: behdad: do you have an idea of the directory name you'll use, so I can put it in my macro package? (19:03:13) behdad: /usr/share/fontconfig/fonts.avail sounds right to me (19:03:23) behdad: specially that it's not used in any applications. (19:03:33) behdad: just as symlink targets. so I'm comfortable having fontconfig in the name (19:03:45) behdad: s/fonts.avail/conf.avail -- 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 20 19:58:57 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:58:57 +0100 Subject: FWN article on web font surveys Message-ID: <1227211137.28736.10.camel@arekh.okg> Hi, Now that: 1. Fedora 10 has a significative font complement 2. Fedora 10 has a working openjdk java plugin 3. Linux has enough market share web designers care a little about us I'd like someone at FWN to write a simple article asking our users to participate in the online font surveys out there on Fedora 10 release http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Linux_fonts_on_the_web_? _CSS_and_font_surveys This way we may limit the number of web sites that only work with Arial or Times New Roman, and make more web designers aware of the fonts actually available on free systems. Sadly I doubt my English is simple and compelling enough for the task. Best 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 21 09:40:21 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:40:21 +0100 Subject: FWN article on web font surveys In-Reply-To: <49265BE6.5050409@nicubunu.ro> References: <1227211137.28736.10.camel@arekh.okg> <49265BE6.5050409@nicubunu.ro> Message-ID: <1227260421.9545.11.camel@arekh.okg> Hi Nicu, Thank you for taking the time to reply. To avoid repeating the very unpleasant 1h30 exchange I had with infra yesterday after sending my message to fedora-news, I know my limitations. I don't have the capabilities, time, or means to set up servers in the stead of infra, rewrite apps in the stead of developpers, write articles in the stead of article writers. There is not an army of me. There is one (overbooked). Please help. -- 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 nicu_fedora at nicubunu.ro Fri Nov 21 10:04:38 2008 From: nicu_fedora at nicubunu.ro (Nicu Buculei) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:04:38 +0200 Subject: FWN article on web font surveys In-Reply-To: <1227260421.9545.11.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1227211137.28736.10.camel@arekh.okg> <49265BE6.5050409@nicubunu.ro> <1227260421.9545.11.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <492687B6.60301@nicubunu.ro> Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > To avoid repeating the very unpleasant 1h30 exchange I had with infra > yesterday after sending my message to fedora-news, I know my > limitations. I don't have the capabilities, time, or means to set up > servers in the stead of infra, rewrite apps in the stead of developpers, > write articles in the stead of article writers. Nicholas, this is what I can offer: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FWN/Beats/Artwork It is very succinct, in the same way I cover the Art list. If someone else from FWN want to editorialize more on this topic, feel safe to delete my short paragraph. > There is not an army of me. There is one (overbooked). Please help. I see the traffic in the fonts list is low and a permanent column on FWN would be too much (this happen with a lot of other lists) so I won't invite someone from your SIG to join FWN, insead I subscribed myself to the list so if something worthy of reporting happens once in a while, I have the opportunity to talk about it. PS: I didn't took the fonts surveys myself, since I am not an ordinary user and have extra fonts installed and OTOH, as a designer, I stay with "safe fonts" for web pages (and won't change my mind about that easily). -- nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com Cool Fedora wallpapers: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro/wallpapers/ Open Clip Art Library: http://www.openclipart.org my Fedora stuff: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Nov 21 10:34:13 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:34:13 +0100 Subject: where's the wish list for F11? In-Reply-To: <20081121094044.GA24555@mokona.greysector.net> References: <20081121094044.GA24555@mokona.greysector.net> Message-ID: <1227263653.9545.18.camel@arekh.okg> Le vendredi 21 novembre 2008 ? 10:40 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski a ?crit : > On Friday, 21 November 2008 at 03:07, sean darcy wrote: > [...] > > First, I'm a great yum fan. And you are the man. No irony or sarcasm. > > > > But... I use a lot of 3rd party fonts that aren't open, like most > > designers. It's weird/strange/peculiar there's no system-config-fonts > > that would allow us to install them. > > This calls for some font2spec script that'd create a spec file for your > font and let you build a package from it easily, much like R2spec or > cpan2rpm. R2spec or cpan2rpm work by converting existing metadata. Raw font files do not have the kind of metadata which could be used to generate complete spec files. You have significant packager involvment to fill the info that wouldn't be there otherwise. But anyway you're invited like everyone else on the list to review, comment on and complete the current font packaging guideline change proposal on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation -- 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 21 12:24:45 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:24:45 +0100 Subject: where's the wish list for F11? In-Reply-To: <20081121112829.GC24555@mokona.greysector.net> References: <20081121094044.GA24555@mokona.greysector.net> <1227263653.9545.18.camel@arekh.okg> <20081121112829.GC24555@mokona.greysector.net> Message-ID: <1227270285.9545.27.camel@arekh.okg> Le vendredi 21 novembre 2008 ? 12:28 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski a ?crit : > On Friday, 21 November 2008 at 11:34, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > But anyway you're invited like everyone else on the list to review, > > comment on and complete the current font packaging guideline change > > proposal on > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation > > It looks mostly sane (I applied some grammar and punctuation fixes, I hope > you don't mind), Thank you for the review and the fixes, I don't mind at all, quite the contrary, you're very welcome. Please post any remarks you may have about the packages themselves, that's where the long-term value is. > but I don't like the naming of "rpm-fonts-filesystem". This > has nothing to do with rpm itself, hence it shouldn't look like a subpackage > of rpm. Instead, I suggest "fonts-filesystem". I fear that by the time I had written the macros, templates, specs, wiki pages, and all, my inspiration had quite dried out. I don't like rpm-fonts much, but I feel fonts would be too generic a name for the base package. If anyone has great naming ideas, I'm all ears. -- 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 21 12:37:07 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:37:07 +0100 Subject: FWN article on web font surveys In-Reply-To: <492687B6.60301@nicubunu.ro> References: <1227211137.28736.10.camel@arekh.okg> <49265BE6.5050409@nicubunu.ro> <1227260421.9545.11.camel@arekh.okg> <492687B6.60301@nicubunu.ro> Message-ID: <1227271027.9545.37.camel@arekh.okg> Le vendredi 21 novembre 2008 ? 12:04 +0200, Nicu Buculei a ?crit : > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > > To avoid repeating the very unpleasant 1h30 exchange I had with infra > > yesterday after sending my message to fedora-news, I know my > > limitations. I don't have the capabilities, time, or means to set up > > servers in the stead of infra, rewrite apps in the stead of developpers, > > write articles in the stead of article writers. > > Nicholas, this is what I can offer: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FWN/Beats/Artwork > It is very succinct, in the same way I cover the Art list. If someone > else from FWN want to editorialize more on this topic, feel safe to > delete my short paragraph. Thank you for writing this. If someone has the time to complete it, there is a lot of material in the web site referenced in the wiki page http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Linux_fonts_on_the_web_%E2%80% 94_CSS_and_font_surveys > > There is not an army of me. There is one (overbooked). Please help. > > I see the traffic in the fonts list is low and a permanent column on FWN > would be too much (this happen with a lot of other lists) so I won't > invite someone from your SIG to join FWN, insead I subscribed myself to > the list so if something worthy of reporting happens once in a while, I > have the opportunity to talk about it. Since all the day-to-day font info traffic was redirected to http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-fonts-bugs-list/ , the main fedora-fonts-list has almost morphed in an announce list. Sometimes I feel I'm writing to myself (even though I know some of the few subscribers have key positions in upstream projects we depend on). More FWN echo would certainly help attract new contributors. > PS: I didn't took the fonts surveys myself, since I am not an ordinary > user and have extra fonts installed and OTOH, as a designer, I stay with > "safe fonts" for web pages (and won't change my mind about that easily). Unfortunately too few people take the surveys, so even recently they claimed most Linux users had access to Luxi and Liberation + DejaVu didn't exist. -- 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 nicu_fedora at nicubunu.ro Fri Nov 21 13:19:31 2008 From: nicu_fedora at nicubunu.ro (Nicu Buculei) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 15:19:31 +0200 Subject: FWN article on web font surveys In-Reply-To: <1227271027.9545.37.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1227211137.28736.10.camel@arekh.okg> <49265BE6.5050409@nicubunu.ro> <1227260421.9545.11.camel@arekh.okg> <492687B6.60301@nicubunu.ro> <1227271027.9545.37.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <4926B563.6000103@nicubunu.ro> Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Unfortunately too few people take the surveys, so even recently they > claimed most Linux users had access to Luxi and Liberation + DejaVu > didn't exist. But from an opposite angle, as a website designer using a Fedora desktop, I know that a good portion of my visitors are using Windows and they don't have installed DejaVu or Luxi (it would be too much to expect something like MgOpen). And as a consequence I go on all my websites with font-family: "Liberation Sans", Arial, sans-serif ; -- nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com Cool Fedora wallpapers: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro/wallpapers/ Open Clip Art Library: http://www.openclipart.org my Fedora stuff: http://fedora.nicubunu.ro From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Nov 21 16:13:21 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:13:21 +0100 Subject: where's the wish list for F11? In-Reply-To: References: <20081121094044.GA24555@mokona.greysector.net> <1227263653.9545.18.camel@arekh.okg> <20081121112829.GC24555@mokona.greysector.net> <1227270285.9545.27.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <1227284001.13179.14.camel@arekh.okg> Le vendredi 21 novembre 2008 ? 10:00 -0500, sean darcy a ?crit : > But can't this be done without making an rpm package ( which may or may > not raise legal issues). Installing anything via an rpm will be just as legal (or not) as installing it by other means > I'm looking for something much simpler: I go buy/get a font; I open > fonts-filesystem/system-config-fonts/whatever ; I point it to the font ( > Type1, TT, etc); and the font is installed. So you're asking for a font-specific installation method. Why not add a clipart-specific one? And a templates-specific one? And a palette-specific one? This quickly ends up an unmanageable mess wasting the time of everyone involved. You already have a limited user-level font installation method for casual users (or had, a bug is open to resurect it). Anything more complex, such as a system-wide method needing to replicate all the work we already do in rpm, is a waste of resources. > Making an rpm package of the font first seems to make this more involved > than it needs to be. The key word here is seems. Like many other "shortcuts", trying to avoid making an rpm will end up a lot more work unless you really know what you're doing (which you only will after having made a few rpms). -- 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 tmus at tmus.dk Sat Nov 22 03:18:50 2008 From: tmus at tmus.dk (Thomas M Steenholdt) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:18:50 -0300 Subject: where's the wish list for F11? In-Reply-To: <1227284001.13179.14.camel@arekh.okg> References: <20081121094044.GA24555@mokona.greysector.net> <1227263653.9545.18.camel@arekh.okg> <20081121112829.GC24555@mokona.greysector.net> <1227270285.9545.27.camel@arekh.okg> <1227284001.13179.14.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le vendredi 21 novembre 2008 ? 10:00 -0500, sean darcy a ?crit : > >> But can't this be done without making an rpm package ( which may or may >> not raise legal issues). > > Installing anything via an rpm will be just as legal (or not) as > installing it by other means > >> I'm looking for something much simpler: I go buy/get a font; I open >> fonts-filesystem/system-config-fonts/whatever ; I point it to the font ( >> Type1, TT, etc); and the font is installed. > > So you're asking for a font-specific installation method. > Why not add a clipart-specific one? And a templates-specific one? And a > palette-specific one? > > This quickly ends up an unmanageable mess wasting the time of everyone > involved. > > You already have a limited user-level font installation method for > casual users (or had, a bug is open to resurect it). Anything more > complex, such as a system-wide method needing to replicate all the work > we already do in rpm, is a waste of resources. > >> Making an rpm package of the font first seems to make this more involved >> than it needs to be. > > The key word here is seems. Like many other "shortcuts", trying to avoid > making an rpm will end up a lot more work unless you really know what > you're doing (which you only will after having made a few rpms). > > I don't make RPMS for every wallpaper I download and intend to use on my machine. And in my world, fonts are not too different in that respect. Why not simply provide the default fontconfig package, with the ability to load fonts from say "/usr/local/share/fonts" ? People with this kind of need could simple become root and copy their fonts into that directory and be done with it... Why not? /THomas From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Nov 22 08:57:25 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 09:57:25 +0100 Subject: where's the wish list for F11? In-Reply-To: References: <20081121094044.GA24555@mokona.greysector.net> <1227263653.9545.18.camel@arekh.okg> <20081121112829.GC24555@mokona.greysector.net> <1227270285.9545.27.camel@arekh.okg> <1227284001.13179.14.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <1227344245.4773.2.camel@arekh.okg> Le samedi 22 novembre 2008 ? 00:18 -0300, Thomas M Steenholdt a ?crit : > I don't make RPMS for every wallpaper I download and intend to use on my > machine. And in my world, fonts are not too different in that respect. Please look at what our font packages actually do before stating this. -- 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 23 13:09:20 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:09:20 +0100 Subject: Droid fallback CJK and fontconfig? Message-ID: <1227445760.20262.10.camel@arekh.okg> Hi, As you probably know Google has released a Droid font set as part of its Android platform. While the font licensing is being clarified https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472635 (Fedora packaging blocker) I've taken a quick look at the font files. The set includes a huge "Droid Sans Fallback" font with CJK coverage. Could the CJK folks take a look at it and tell me how this font should be treated: as Japanese-only, Chinese-only, Korean-only before/after current CJK defaults, etc? Han unification means someone will probably not be happy about it. I've uploaded preliminary droid packages there http://nim.fedorapeople.org/fontpackages/ so people can check them out. 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 Sun Nov 23 14:47:51 2008 From: fangqq at gmail.com (Qianqian Fang) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 09:47:51 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: Droid fallback CJK and fontconfig?] In-Reply-To: <1227446605.20262.11.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1227446605.20262.11.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <49296D17.3050703@gmail.com> hi Nicolas As we discussed last time, I've sent email asking for official confirmation and clarifications of the license in the font metadata. I am now waiting to hear back from them (message attached). The Han glyphs in Droid fallback pretty much follow the Han-unification as in the unicode documentations. That means they look very much close to what Chinese mainland users preferred. The style is Heiti, which is like ttf-wqy-zenhei and is essentially a sans-serif style. There are 16,502 Hanzi in the CJK basic block, which is the union of GB2312 and Big5 charsets. Because this font is targeted at memory-limited devices, there are 15,524 Han glyphs were composed by references, the rest are stand-alone outline glyphs which can not be decomposed into components. It contains no embedded bitmaps, but the outline quality is very good. I believe most zh_* users will be very happy if this font will be used as desktop font (the current zh_* font on Fedora is wqy-bitmapfont which is also using the Han-unification forms). It may be a little bit difficult for Japanese and Korean users though. As this font does not provide the full coverage to all CJK glyphs, in the mean time, I believe the current national standards and regulations in mainland China prefer GBK (same as CJK unified ideographs), or even GB18030 (CJK basic+CJK Ext. A) coverage, so, I've planned to extend this font to at least GBK charset. That means to complete about 4500 glyphs. I and a friend are now working on an online tool to allow people to compose new glyphs from existing Droid components. It is almost working, you can browse the following link for a sample output: (need to view with firefox 3.x) http://wenq.org/enindex.cgi?ViewGlyph#SFD/Droid/%E8%85%AA the GUI is at http://wenq.org/enindex.cgi?BezierGlyph but it only has Chinese instructions so far. Once the license is sorted out, we will start promoting this project among the Chinese users, and make our way toward a more complete CJK font with this extension. I also planned to look into the reference glyphs and seek the possibility of further compression of the font. Similar to the current ttf-wqy-zenhei settings, Chinese users will also be happy to see a mono-spaced face co-existing with the regular face in ttc form. Qianqian Joe Onorato wrote: > Hi Qianqian, > > I'll follow up with the people responsible for fonts. > > -joe > > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Qianqian Fang > wrote: > > hi Joe > > A few weeks ago, I posted a question on android-discussion group, > asking about the droid font licenses: > > http://groups.google.com/group/android-discuss/browse_thread/thread/3c60867cab66e23d/ab69c3174b63ca4c?lnk=gst&q=font#ab69c3174b63ca4c > > > I really appreciate your feedback and confirmation on the license > matter. > > As I am an maintainer for an open-source font project, I also > maintain a few CJKV font packages for Fedora. Recently, I > mentioned my plan of making derived fonts from Droid > font family at fedora's font list, the people in charge appeared > to be very careful, and warned me to obtain a more "official" > clarification on the license before taking further actions. You > can see our discussions at > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-fonts-list/2008-November/msg00009.html > > We both felt that the best way to make the clarifications is to state > it in the metadata section of the font, there are dedicated > "License Description" > and "License Info URL" fields in the name table to specify the > font licenses: > > http://partners.adobe.com/public/developer/opentype/index_name.html > > I am wondering if it is possible for android team to update the font > files and clarify the licenses. In this way, people's confusion on > the fonts > and the sdk package will completely go away. > > If you or your team member do have the plan to make this > change, I would be appreciated if you can let me know when > the updated fonts are pushed into svn, so I can mobilize my > team to start planned works around these fonts. > > thank you so much for your time and looking forward to your reply. > > Qianqian > > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Hi, > > As you probably know Google has released a Droid font set as part of its > Android platform. While the font licensing is being clarified > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472635 > (Fedora packaging blocker) I've taken a quick look at the font files. > > The set includes a huge "Droid Sans Fallback" font with CJK coverage. > Could the CJK folks take a look at it and tell me how this font should > be treated: as Japanese-only, Chinese-only, Korean-only before/after > current CJK defaults, etc? Han unification means someone will probably > not be happy about it. > > I've uploaded preliminary droid packages there > http://nim.fedorapeople.org/fontpackages/ > > so people can check them out. > > Regards, > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > Fedora-i18n-list mailing list > Fedora-i18n-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-i18n-list From fangqq at gmail.com Sun Nov 23 16:30:36 2008 From: fangqq at gmail.com (Qianqian Fang) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 11:30:36 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: Droid fallback CJK and fontconfig?] In-Reply-To: <1227446605.20262.11.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1227446605.20262.11.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <4929852C.6080608@gmail.com> Just a few more words about default Chinese font settings. There seem be a distinct dividing line among the Chinese users for their font preferences: on one side of the line, they really prefer sharp-looking bitmaped Chinese glyphs, while, the other side have strong preference in the smooth-looking of AA-ed vector rendering. The contradictions between these two groups can be constantly felt in almost all Chinese Linux forums. Using Ubuntu as an example, when Ubuntu 8.04 set wqy-zenhei as the default Chinese Sans font, it has the embedded bitmaps turned on by default. There was a strong rally against using the embedded bitmaps, because they like the vector form of ZenHei. I have to put instructions on our front page to tell people how to turn off the bitmaps. After a 400-participant survey, somebody proved that vector-preferred users are about 3:1 to the bitmap ones http://forum.ubuntu.org.cn/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=120639 (in Chinese) So, in 8.10, the bitmaps in ZenHei was turned off. Now, the CN forum of ubuntu is flooded with complains of losing their "sharp-looking glyphs", and asking how to turn on the bitmaps. I had to make another sticky post at our website to teach people how to turn it back on. What I want to say is, these two groups both have significant number of supporters. As the current settings on Fedora is the bitmap way. I would anticipate some disturbance among the users for the font style switching from one to the other if we decide to use Droid(or derivatives) as the default. Hope the font-selector tool can be released timely to help sorting out the font preference chaos: https://wiki.kubuntu.org/font-selector Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Hi, > > As you probably know Google has released a Droid font set as part of its > Android platform. While the font licensing is being clarified > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472635 > (Fedora packaging blocker) I've taken a quick look at the font files. > > The set includes a huge "Droid Sans Fallback" font with CJK coverage. > Could the CJK folks take a look at it and tell me how this font should > be treated: as Japanese-only, Chinese-only, Korean-only before/after > current CJK defaults, etc? Han unification means someone will probably > not be happy about it. > > I've uploaded preliminary droid packages there > http://nim.fedorapeople.org/fontpackages/ > > so people can check them out. > > Regards, > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > Fedora-i18n-list mailing list > Fedora-i18n-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-i18n-list From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Nov 23 16:54:27 2008 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:54:27 +0100 Subject: [Fwd: Droid fallback CJK and fontconfig?] In-Reply-To: <49296D17.3050703@gmail.com> References: <1227446605.20262.11.camel@arekh.okg> <49296D17.3050703@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1227459267.25325.15.camel@arekh.okg> Le dimanche 23 novembre 2008 ? 09:47 -0500, Qianqian Fang a ?crit : > hi Nicolas > The Han glyphs in Droid fallback pretty much follow the Han-unification > as in the unicode documentations. That means they look very much close > to what Chinese mainland users preferred. The style is Heiti, which is like > ttf-wqy-zenhei and is essentially a sans-serif style. There are 16,502 Hanzi > in the CJK basic block, which is the union of GB2312 and Big5 charsets. > Because this font is targeted at memory-limited devices, there are > 15,524 Han glyphs were composed by references, the rest are stand-alone > outline glyphs which can not be decomposed into components. > It contains no embedded bitmaps, but the outline quality is very good. > I believe most zh_* users will be very happy if this font will be used > as desktop font (the current zh_* font on Fedora is wqy-bitmapfont > which is also using the Han-unification forms). It may be a little bit > difficult for Japanese and Korean users though. [?] > Just a few more words about default Chinese font settings. > > There seem be a distinct dividing line among the Chinese > users for their font preferences: on one side of the line, > they really prefer sharp-looking bitmaped Chinese glyphs, while, > the other side have strong preference in the smooth-looking of > AA-ed vector rendering. The contradictions between these two > groups can be constantly felt in almost all Chinese Linux > forums. So, would the attached fontconfig file be ok according to your knowledge of Chinese users? (installed as 65-google-droid-sans-fallback.conf) I'm quite happy to learn that even among Chinese people prefer vector fonts. I prefer them myself, and IMHO they are the future anyway :p. However, to keep everyone happy, can you share with us what your declinaison of vector/bitmap fontconfig rules would be for Droid? It's quite easy for me to put two different files in the rpm, with only one linked in /etc/conf.d/ by default. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: google-droid-fonts-sans-fallback-fontconfig.conf Type: application/xml Size: 1295 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- 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 Sun Nov 23 19:24:48 2008 From: fangqq at gmail.com (Qianqian Fang) Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 14:24:48 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: Droid fallback CJK and fontconfig?] In-Reply-To: <1227459267.25325.15.camel@arekh.okg> References: <1227446605.20262.11.camel@arekh.okg> <49296D17.3050703@gmail.com> <1227459267.25325.15.camel@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <4929AE00.80300@gmail.com> Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > So, would the attached fontconfig file be ok according to your knowledge > of Chinese users? (installed as 65-google-droid-sans-fallback.conf) Since you already have zh_tw in the match sets, why not also include zh_hk, zh_sg and zh_mo? In the current version of wqy-bitmap-fonts package, we have something like zh maybe Bedhdad can comment on whether this form is recommended or not. Alternatively, ... The default zh_* font wqy-bitmap-fonts has 61-wqy-bitmapsong.conf, which claimed priorities for sans and serif aliases. If we want to set Droid as the default in the future, the interactions of these two files should be investigated. > I'm quite happy to learn that even among Chinese people prefer vector > fonts. I prefer them myself, and IMHO they are the future anyway :p. > Song-Ti style font (such as arphic-uming) vector rendering is still too blurry to be accepted by most Chinese users. However, the Hei-Ti style (semi-bold sans) Chinese fonts, such as wqy-zenhei-fonts, fonts from MS vista and Mac OS, have emboldened strokes and are not bad at all for screen use. Most of these vector supporters were attracted by one of these Hei-ti fonts. > However, to keep everyone happy, can you share with us what your > declinaison of vector/bitmap fontconfig rules would be for Droid? It's > quite easy for me to put two different files in the rpm, with only one > linked in /etc/conf.d/ by default. > Both are working fine with me, I mean either 1) bitmap Chinese + vector non-CJK glyphs or 2) vector sans-serif font for both Chinese and non-Chinese. Setting hintstyle to hintslight with subpixel-hinting on works the best for vector one on my LCD. Since Droid does not come with embedded bitmaps, the only way to get bitmap+Droid working is to use fontconfig to synthesize with the presence of wqy-bitmap-fonts. I support your idea of making two files in conf.avail and link one, which is the current wqy-zenhei settings in Ubuntu (we have 44-wqy-zenhei.conf and 66-wqy-zenhei-sharp.conf). But letting the ordinary users to switch between the two settings is still kind of difficult, you have to tell them exactly what to do and put these instructions in a highly visible place. > Regards, > >