From behdad at behdad.org Fri Dec 4 00:13:42 2009 From: behdad at behdad.org (Behdad Esfahbod) Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:13:42 -0500 Subject: FreeType patented bytecode interpreter now in rawhide Message-ID: <4B185436.4090802@behdad.org> Hi, Since the patents covering the TrueType bytecode interpreter expired at the end of October, I've now built FreeType in rawhide with that part of code enabled. Note that the subpixel stuff remains disabled as it was. behdad From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Dec 4 13:49:43 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:49:43 +0100 Subject: FreeType patented bytecode interpreter now in rawhide In-Reply-To: References: <4B185436.4090802@behdad.org> Message-ID: <8ff5cb21a6af08250c674f0086874bb3.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Le Ven 4 d?cembre 2009 13:50, Mat?j Cepl a ?crit : > > Dne 4.12.2009 01:13, Behdad Esfahbod napsal(a): >> Since the patents covering the TrueType bytecode interpreter expired at >> the end of October, I've now built FreeType in rawhide with that part of >> code enabled. > > can we hope for the update in F12 as well, please? Given how any font rendering changes seems to degrade font rendering for some users, I'd very much prefer it went through a full release testing cycle before hitting unsuspecting users. -- Nicolas Mailhot From k at kaio.me Fri Dec 4 15:45:01 2009 From: k at kaio.me (Caius 'kaio' Chance) Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 01:45:01 +1000 Subject: FreeType patented bytecode interpreter now in rawhide In-Reply-To: <8ff5cb21a6af08250c674f0086874bb3.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> References: <4B185436.4090802@behdad.org> <8ff5cb21a6af08250c674f0086874bb3.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <4B192E7D.9020008@kaio.me> (2009?12?04? 23:49), Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le Ven 4 d?cembre 2009 13:50, Mat?j Cepl a ?crit : >> >> Dne 4.12.2009 01:13, Behdad Esfahbod napsal(a): >>> Since the patents covering the TrueType bytecode interpreter expired at >>> the end of October, I've now built FreeType in rawhide with that part of >>> code enabled. Look forward to it. > Given how any font rendering changes seems to degrade font rendering for some > users, I'd very much prefer it went through a full release testing cycle > before hitting unsuspecting users. > Look forward to it, too. :? Regards, kaio -- Caius 'kaio' Chance / ??? Fedora Project Contributor http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:kaio kaio at fedoraproject.org, kaio on irc.freenode.net, GPG: 17BEFCFA From mikewate at gmail.com Mon Dec 7 22:55:11 2009 From: mikewate at gmail.com (Mike Waters) Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 16:55:11 -0600 Subject: Preview font package contents without installing first? Message-ID: Hello, I need a couple of unusual fonts for a logo I'm doing for a friend's web site, and nothing like what I need is installed on this Fedora 11 machine. I see lots and lots of fonts in Gnome Package Manager that I can install. But is it possible to view them without installing them first? Is there a web site that shows what they look like? I've just spent a long time Googling and searching the Fedora forums, etc. for the answer but nothing found. TIA. Best regards, Mike From paragn at fedoraproject.org Tue Dec 8 09:03:24 2009 From: paragn at fedoraproject.org (=?UTF-8?B?UGFyYWcgTijgpKrgpLDgpL7gpZop?=) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 14:33:24 +0530 Subject: woff and woffTools packages anyone want maintainership? Message-ID: Hi, I have packaged woff[1] and woffTools[2] but as I see no one has shown interest to review it so I have closed them as NOTABUG but I am still interested in those packages to see in Fedora. I am ready to review those packages. I just need someone to become maintainer. I can be co-maintainer for them. In case anyone is interested in these packages please open same bugzilla reviews that I have closed. I will then review it. Regards, Parag. [1]https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=541792 [2]https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=541793 From sshedmak at redhat.com Tue Dec 8 09:37:29 2009 From: sshedmak at redhat.com (Sandeep Shedmake) Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:07:29 +0530 Subject: woff and woffTools packages anyone want maintainership? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B1E1E59.7020802@redhat.com> Parag N(????) wrote: > Hi, > I have packaged woff[1] and woffTools[2] but as I see no one has > shown interest to review it so I have closed them as NOTABUG but I am > still interested in those packages to see in Fedora. I am ready to > review those packages. I just need someone to become maintainer. I can > be co-maintainer for them. > In case anyone is interested in these packages please open same > bugzilla reviews that I have closed. I am interested. Re-opened bugzilla reviews. I will then review it. > > Regards, > Parag. > > [1]https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=541792 > [2]https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=541793 > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-fonts-list mailing list > Fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list From paragn at fedoraproject.org Tue Dec 8 10:53:31 2009 From: paragn at fedoraproject.org (=?UTF-8?B?UGFyYWcgTijgpKrgpLDgpL7gpZop?=) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 16:23:31 +0530 Subject: woff and woffTools packages anyone want maintainership? In-Reply-To: <4B1E1E59.7020802@redhat.com> References: <4B1E1E59.7020802@redhat.com> Message-ID: Hi, 2009/12/8 Sandeep Shedmake : > Parag N(????) wrote: >> >> Hi, >> ? ?I have packaged woff[1] and woffTools[2] but as I see no one has >> shown interest to review it so I have closed them as NOTABUG but I am >> still interested in those packages to see in Fedora. I am ready to >> review those packages. I just need someone to become maintainer. I can >> be co-maintainer for them. >> ? ?In case anyone is interested in these packages please open same >> bugzilla reviews that I have closed. > > I am interested. Re-opened bugzilla reviews. Thanks Sandeep. I will review these packages. Regards, Parag. From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Dec 8 11:04:19 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:04:19 +0100 Subject: Preview font package contents without installing first? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5799989eab694cd6169f732af6cd2215.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Le Lun 7 d?cembre 2009 23:55, Mike Waters a ?crit : > I see lots and lots of fonts in Gnome Package Manager that I can > install. But is it possible to view them without installing them > first? Is there a web site that shows what they look like? > > I've just spent a long time Googling and searching the Fedora forums, > etc. for the answer but nothing found. Right now, not really. The correct fix would be to enhance packagekit so it displays font previews (that's what the average user would expect) http://bugzilla.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18928 (people need to add their voice here or it will remain an obscure RFE few people asked for) A manpower-heavy short-term workaround would be for someone to generate previews for all the fonts and add them to the Fedora wiki https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fonts -- Nicolas Mailhot From tagoh at redhat.com Thu Dec 17 14:06:51 2009 From: tagoh at redhat.com (Akira TAGOH) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:06:51 +0900 (JST) Subject: fontconfig config priority Message-ID: <20091217.230651.608190743439536704.tagoh@redhat.com> Hi, I have a question and a suggestion for the fontconfig config priority in the font packaging policy. I'm writing a small script to validate the fontconfig config in packages to not mess up. the goal is to check if the priority is set accurately and the config files are following our templates. it roughly started working. but I'm not quite sure what "Latin" in LGC really covers. is it similar to what Latin-[1-10] covers? or more strictly applied? The suggestion is, about improving the policy to set the priority more strictly. I have two ideas: 1) have variety of the priorities for non-LGC fonts as well like for default, main and low perhaps. even though LGC fonts has a priority for default font, but not for non-LGC fonts. it may messes up their default font if multiple fonts with the same priority such as 65 are installed. this priority things could avoids this issue. it may be something like: 65-69 ... High priority non-LGC fonts 70 ... Main non-LGC font list 71-64 ... Low priority non-LGC fonts 2) describes what exactly "default", "Main" and "Low" priority means. during developing and testing this script, I see some packages is possibly wrongly set the priority to their fontconfig config files, for example, some font is set the priority to 57 that is supposed to be the default font, but not marked as mandatory in comps. so I'd suggest to update comps or change the priority like: - mandatory for higher priority - default for main priority - optional for low priority and update the policy with it as well. Any thoughts or comments are welcome. TIA, -- Akira TAGOH -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 190 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Dec 22 23:14:26 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:14:26 +0100 Subject: fontconfig config priority In-Reply-To: <20091217.230651.608190743439536704.tagoh@redhat.com> References: <20091217.230651.608190743439536704.tagoh@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1261523666.10237.18.camel@arekh.okg> Le jeudi 17 d?cembre 2009 ? 23:06 +0900, Akira TAGOH a ?crit : > Hi, Hi, > I have a question and a suggestion for the fontconfig > config priority in the font packaging policy. > > I'm writing a small script to validate the fontconfig config > in packages to not mess up. Wondeful! If you want commit access to fontpackages to have it integrated with our other tools, just ask (if the licensing is OK with you) > the goal is to check if the > priority is set accurately and the config files are > following our templates. it roughly started working. but I'm > not quite sure what "Latin" in LGC really covers. is it > similar to what Latin-[1-10] covers? or more strictly > applied? LGC roughtly means latin-like alphabetical scripts that are written linearly with few ligatures, and those that exist optional (not indic, not arabic, not cjk?) Also an unofficial requirement for those scripts is to be from regions where people are familiar enough with latin letters not to butcher them when they include them in fonts A more professional description would be welcome :) > The suggestion is, about improving the policy to set the > priority more strictly. I have two ideas: > > 1) have variety of the priorities for non-LGC fonts as well > like for default, main and low perhaps. > even though LGC fonts has a priority for default font, > but not for non-LGC fonts. it may messes up their default > font if multiple fonts with the same priority such as 65 > are installed. this priority things could avoids this issue. > it may be something like: > > 65-69 ... High priority non-LGC fonts > 70 ... Main non-LGC font list > 71-64 ... Low priority non-LGC fonts Those ranges are inherited from the fontconfig master file split that occured a few years ago upstream. I'm not so sure that nowadays they are the most appropriate. We've certainly started pushing a lot more fontconfig files that upstream thought at the time, and are hitting many limitations (layout that was supposed to be flexible enough to allow customization, but is not really because of the files that have kept long font lists). If you try to split the non-latin file, for example, you quickly hit prefix starvation. However, that's just MHO. Other people may not share it. But please keep an open mind and do propose another file naming convention if you find a better one. I think that the main requirements would be to 1. clearly define the ranges a local sysadmin, a distro, and fontconfig upstream fallbacks should use 2. try to separate classes of fonts to minimize risks of conflicts (like the current lgc/non lgc split) 3. make locale appear when it is relevant 4. make the font names appear in filenames so people do not need grepping to locate where the rules associated with their font are It is possible in fontconfig to use something longer that the current 2-digit prefixes to order files > 2) describes what exactly "default", "Main" and "Low" > priority means. > during developing and testing this script, I see some > packages is possibly wrongly set the priority to their > fontconfig config files, for example, some font is set the > priority to 57 that is supposed to be the default font, but > not marked as mandatory in comps. so I'd suggest to update > comps or change the priority like: > > - mandatory for higher priority > - default for main priority > - optional for low priority > > and update the policy with it as well. I don't think using comps brutally will work : 1. currently we do not have separate comps groups for every fontconfig/css generic, fontconfig and apps really want a separate font stack for each generic (though this could be fixed by splitting the master fonts comps group) 2. sometimes our requirements are a lot more subtle than mandatory/default : dejavu and liberation are both default, but their ordering is not random However I can only applaud trying to improve our fontconfig packaging, and writing qa tests: this is sorely needed, if we want to continue improving Fedora font support. Best regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From invite+kjdmh-hhhkvd at facebookmail.com Sat Dec 26 09:56:59 2009 From: invite+kjdmh-hhhkvd at facebookmail.com (Hiran Venugopalan) Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 01:56:59 -0800 Subject: Take a look at my photos on Facebook Message-ID: <05524edf06ce92d17e9bed14c74edc40@10.16.160.188> Hi Fedora-fonts-list, I set up a Facebook Profile where I can post my pictures, videos and events and I want to add you as a friend so you can see it. First, you need to join Facebook! Once you join, you can also create your own profile. Thanks, Hiran To join Facebook, please follow the link below: http://www.facebook.com/p.php?i=767902929&k=3YBUY35Y3T6G6BD1TEW2URYQP6BAY3WFUQAU&r Already have an account? Add this email address to your account http://www.facebook.com/n/?merge_accounts.php&e=fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com&c=221a2e5415cdfef6589278c8b3837c98.fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com was invited to join Facebook by Hiran Venugopalan. If you do not wish to receive this type of email from Facebook in the future, please click on the link below to unsubscribe. http://www.facebook.com/o.php?k=631cb2&u=100000578746823&mid=19fdb19G5af332f939c7G0G8 Facebook's offices are located at 1601 S. California Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94304. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: