From petersen at redhat.com Thu Oct 1 00:38:36 2009 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:38:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: bitmap-fonts by default? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1399102181.839471254357516591.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> > IMHO default packages in default groups should have a clear user, or > be downgraded to optional. Right I suggest we make it optional in comps-f13 and see if anything "breaks". Jens From michael.silvanus at gmail.com Thu Oct 1 01:34:40 2009 From: michael.silvanus at gmail.com (Michel Alexandre Salim) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:34:40 -0400 Subject: Self-introduction, and review request Message-ID: <615c05430909301834r12f6d836u767613c540515b78@mail.gmail.com> Hello all, I've been a Fedora packager for several years, mostly focusing on programming language and desktop packages, but have never dabbled at packaging fonts until now. Here's the review request -- for Comic Sans haters, this is M?ir?n's idea, I'm just the .. err.. perpetrator! Review Request: openfontlibrary-smonohand-font - A handwritten monospace font https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526607 Please be thorough -- I'm probably breaking several rules I'm not even aware of. Best Regards, -- Michel Alexandre Salim From pravin.d.s at gmail.com Thu Oct 1 05:31:59 2009 From: pravin.d.s at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?4KSq4KWN4KSw4KS14KS/4KSjIOCkuOCkvuCkpOCkquClgeCkpOClhyA=?=) Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2009 11:01:59 +0530 Subject: bitmap-fonts by default? In-Reply-To: <1399102181.839471254357516591.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> References: <1399102181.839471254357516591.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <764372c80909302231r4be09c55qfcb5d0a44857d33d@mail.gmail.com> 2009/10/1 Jens Petersen > > IMHO default packages in default groups should have a clear user, or > > be downgraded to optional. > > Right I suggest we make it optional in comps-f13 and see if anything > "breaks". > Yep, this looks nice In merge review of bitmap-fonts, we are splitting it as per font family we will get sufficient time to come at conclusion, which to keep default and which optional Thanks & Regards, ---------------------- Pravin Satpute -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sanjay.ankur at gmail.com Sun Oct 4 04:51:48 2009 From: sanjay.ankur at gmail.com (Ankur Sinha) Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2009 10:21:48 +0530 Subject: New font package : oflb-prociono-fonts Message-ID: <1254631908.2700.8.camel@localhost> hi folks, I'm happy to announce that oflb-prociono-fonts have been packaged for fedora and pushed to Bodhi. :) Please have a look at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OFLB_Prociono_fonts -- regards, Ankur From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Oct 5 21:39:55 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 23:39:55 +0200 Subject: Self-introduction, and review request In-Reply-To: <615c05430909301834r12f6d836u767613c540515b78@mail.gmail.com> References: <615c05430909301834r12f6d836u767613c540515b78@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <01fe33d0da5b52c5881b4b8a38affc82.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Le Jeu 1 octobre 2009 03:34, Michel Alexandre Salim a ?crit : > > Hello all, [?] > Review Request: openfontlibrary-smonohand-font - A handwritten monospace font And the package has now passed review. Thank you for stopping here! -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Oct 5 21:42:14 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 23:42:14 +0200 Subject: New font package review request for Sheherazade SIL font In-Reply-To: <4AC0D566.4060707@grad.com> References: <4AC0D566.4060707@grad.com> Message-ID: Le Lun 28 septembre 2009 17:25, Hedayat Vatankhah a ?crit : > > Hi all, > I've created a new font package request at > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=526058 > Any comments and/or suggestions are highly appreciated. Notice that this > is my first font package :) And this one is now approved, I hope its was less painful than you feared. And BTW, we have a few other SIL unicode fonts on the wishlist, now you've done one it should not be too difficult to do others (but just packaging one font is fine too) Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From hedayat at grad.com Tue Oct 6 09:06:17 2009 From: hedayat at grad.com (Hedayat Vatankhah) Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:36:17 +0330 Subject: New font package review request for Sheherazade SIL font In-Reply-To: References: <4AC0D566.4060707@grad.com> Message-ID: <4ACB0889.40706@grad.com> On ??/??/?? 01:12, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le Lun 28 septembre 2009 17:25, Hedayat Vatankhah a ?crit : > >> Hi all, >> I've created a new font package request at >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=526058 >> Any comments and/or suggestions are highly appreciated. Notice that this >> is my first font package :) >> > And this one is now approved, I hope its was less painful than you feared. And > BTW, we have a few other SIL unicode fonts on the wishlist, now you've done > one it should not be too difficult to do others > :) My only fear was about fontconfig rules, which was not that complicated for simple ones (I'm still unsure if I can do better in this area). BTW, I've created a new review request for SIL Lateef font: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=527406 I hope it's better than the first try ;) Thanks again, Hedayat > (but just packaging one font is fine too) > > Regards, > > From michael.silvanus at gmail.com Tue Oct 6 20:28:05 2009 From: michael.silvanus at gmail.com (Michel Alexandre Salim) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 16:28:05 -0400 Subject: EPEL support Message-ID: <615c05430910061328offd9a76h939445063bbf6302@mail.gmail.com> Hello, Is there a reason fontpackages is not available on EPEL (both EL-4 and EL-5)? I don't currently have my CentOS virtual machine set up (VirtualBox is a bit annoying to set up on Rawhide), otherwise I would have tested this myself. Thanks, -- Michel Alexandre Salim From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Oct 6 20:49:21 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 22:49:21 +0200 Subject: EPEL support In-Reply-To: <615c05430910061328offd9a76h939445063bbf6302@mail.gmail.com> References: <615c05430910061328offd9a76h939445063bbf6302@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3d3403930ee04fc1e8519371a36fe2c8.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Le Mar 6 octobre 2009 22:28, Michel Alexandre Salim a ?crit : > > Hello, Hi > Is there a reason fontpackages is not available on EPEL (both EL-4 and > EL-5)? I don't currently have my CentOS virtual machine set up > (VirtualBox is a bit annoying to set up on Rawhide), otherwise I would > have tested this myself. The only reason is that I do not have the time (or interest) to do EPEL. You are welcome to take any of my Fedora packages and push it EPEL-side. Please note however that the spec templates in fontpackages use every trick Fedora rpm supports to be as simple as possible, so if you want to epel-ize them you need to patch in cruft older rpm versions need. (also I don't remember what ancient version of fontconfig is in RHEL4, if it's too old is may be that adapting fontpackages to it is too much work to be worth it at all) -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Oct 6 22:27:50 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 00:27:50 +0200 Subject: New font package review request for Sheherazade SIL font In-Reply-To: <4ACB0889.40706@grad.com> References: <4AC0D566.4060707@grad.com> <4ACB0889.40706@grad.com> Message-ID: <03d621f007160571b10d6a3485d648b7.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Le Mar 6 octobre 2009 11:06, Hedayat Vatankhah a ?crit : > > On ??/??/?? 01:12, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> And this one is now approved, I hope its was less painful than you feared. > :) My only fear was about fontconfig rules, which was not that > complicated for simple ones (I'm still unsure if I can do better in this > area). As long as you stick to one of our templates fontconfig should be easy. I wouldn't recommend straying from them without checking with knowledgeable people (ie Behdad) your new fontconfig pattern has no unintended side-effects. And then if I'm the package reviewer I'll insist you document your new pattern in fontpackages so other packagers benefit from your experience :p > BTW, I've created a new review request for SIL Lateef font: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=527406 > > I hope it's better than the first try ;) It's fine as-is. Approved. Please continue :) Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From duffy at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 8 14:52:01 2009 From: duffy at fedoraproject.org (=?UTF-8?B?TcOhaXLDrW4gRHVmZnk=?=) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:52:01 -0400 Subject: Tiresias fonts question Message-ID: <4ACDFC91.8070005@fedoraproject.org> Hi folks! I recently wrote up a font wishlist page for the Tiresias fonts: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Tiresias_fonts It turns out I didn't notice that the page had already existed since June 2008, but was blank (check out https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Tiresias_fonts&action=history) It also turns out that Tiresias is actually packaged in Fedora! It surprised me because it was in the wishlist list and had no information in its wiki page. tiresias-fonts-common.noarch : Common files for Tiresias fonts : (documentation...) tiresias-info-fonts.noarch : Specialized fonts for info terminals for the : visually impaired tiresias-info-z-fonts.noarch : Specialized fonts for info terminals for the : visually impaired tiresias-key-v2-fonts.noarch : Specialized fonts for labeling keycaps for the : visually impaired tiresias-lp-fonts.noarch : Specialized font for large print publications tiresias-pc-fonts.noarch : Specialized fonts for use on PCs for the visually : impaired tiresias-pc-z-fonts.noarch : Specialized fonts for use on PCs for the visually : impaired tiresias-sign-fonts.noarch : Specialized fonts for preparing signs for the : visually impaired tiresias-sign-z-fonts.noarch : Specialized fonts for preparing signs for the : visually impaired I'm afraid I may have created a mess by filling out that page and I'm wondering what I should do? Should I take off the wishlist tag and add it to the packaged fonts list? Thanks, ~m From duffy at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 8 15:02:32 2009 From: duffy at fedoraproject.org (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E1ir=EDn_Duffy?=) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 11:02:32 -0400 Subject: Coordinating Outreach to font authors Message-ID: <4ACDFF08.80601@fedoraproject.org> Hi folks :) I've contacted a few font authors whose fonts either don't have an explicit license or have an ambiguous/custom license about considering choosing a Fedora-compatible font license [1]. Jason Kottke opened up Silkscreen [2] as a result of one of these emails. I recently contacted Mark Simonson similarly regarding his Anonymous fonts [3] and Pablo Caro regarding Tiza [4] & Bola [5]. (Mark is considering it and says to expect an update 'relatively soon', Pablo is very open to it and I'm discussing with him now the steps he needs to take to move forward.) I think it would be cool if we kept track of the contact we've made with font authors in order to help them license their fonts with explicit licenses like the OFL. It would help us avoid duplicating efforts (and potentially annoying the font authors :) ) and also help us keep track of the progress we've made. Would it be okay if I opened up an additional font category for this? I'm not sure what to call it though, maybe Font_license_under_discussion ? ~m [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Font_Licenses [2] http://www.kottke.org/plus/type/silkscreen/ [3] http://www.ms-studio.com/FontSales/anonymous.html [4] http://www.nuevostudio.com/project/tiza/ [5] http://www.nuevostudio.com/projects/bola/ From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Oct 8 15:17:23 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 17:17:23 +0200 Subject: Tiresias fonts question In-Reply-To: <4ACDFC91.8070005@fedoraproject.org> References: <4ACDFC91.8070005@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: Hey M?ir?n, If you can put a Tiresias page with some info in the packaged list, that would be much appreciated, and avoid further mistakes. Unfortunately all our packaged fonts do not have a wiki page (even though we try not to forget them for new packages) If you feel like adding more wishlist entries, I suggest looking at - http://arkandis.tuxfamily.org/adffonts.html - http://www.advogato.org/person/yosch/diary.html?start=56 - http://www.radisnoir.net/spip.php?page=detaille&id_document=39&id_rubrique=4 Also http://www.fontsquirrel.com/ has more FLOSS fonts than the average font list site, but one still needs to check their licensing individually before adding them to the wishlist Thank you for trying to recruit more font packagers. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Oct 8 15:19:04 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 17:19:04 +0200 Subject: Coordinating Outreach to font authors In-Reply-To: <4ACDFF08.80601@fedoraproject.org> References: <4ACDFF08.80601@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: Le Jeu 8 octobre 2009 17:02, M?ir?n Duffy a ?crit : > I think it would be cool if we kept track of the contact we've made with > font authors in order to help them license their fonts with explicit > licenses like the OFL. It would help us avoid duplicating efforts (and > potentially annoying the font authors :) ) and also help us keep track > of the progress we've made. > > Would it be okay if I opened up an additional font category for this? > I'm not sure what to call it though, maybe Font_license_under_discussion ? That would be more than okay, that would be awesome :) -- Nicolas Mailhot From dave at adsllc.com Wed Oct 14 03:35:33 2009 From: dave at adsllc.com (David Ludlow) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:35:33 -0400 Subject: Packaging M+ & Widelands fonts from the wishlist Message-ID: <4AD54705.2050806@adsllc.com> I'm going to take a stab at packaging the fonts listed in the subject. 'nim' had suggested I give it a shot on #fedora-devel, and it seemed like an interesting challenge. I'm familiar with building RPM packages, but pretty new to the Fedora process. I'm completely ignorant on most aspects of fonts themselves - I see this as an opportunity to learn a little while doing some good. So.... Hello. From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Oct 14 03:35:13 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:05:13 +0530 Subject: Packaging M+ & Widelands fonts from the wishlist In-Reply-To: <4AD54705.2050806@adsllc.com> References: <4AD54705.2050806@adsllc.com> Message-ID: <4AD546F1.4040103@fedoraproject.org> On 10/14/2009 09:05 AM, David Ludlow wrote: > I'm going to take a stab at packaging the fonts listed in the subject. > 'nim' had suggested I give it a shot on #fedora-devel, and it seemed > like an interesting challenge. I'm familiar with building RPM packages, > but pretty new to the Fedora process. I'm completely ignorant on most > aspects of fonts themselves - I see this as an opportunity to learn a > little while doing some good. > > So.... Hello. Hey, Welcome. If you are familiar with RPM packaging already, it shouldn't take much time now especially since the difficult/tedious parts have been abstracted away using macros. Let us know if you need any help. Rahul From nicolas_spalinger at sil.org Wed Oct 14 14:00:24 2009 From: nicolas_spalinger at sil.org (Nicolas Spalinger) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:00:24 +0200 Subject: Coordinating Outreach to font authors In-Reply-To: <4ACDFF08.80601@fedoraproject.org> References: <4ACDFF08.80601@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <4AD5D978.2070708@sil.org> M?ir?n Duffy wrote: > Hi folks :) > > I've contacted a few font authors whose fonts either don't have an > explicit license or have an ambiguous/custom license about considering > choosing a Fedora-compatible font license [1]. Hi M?ir?n, Thanks a lot for your good advocacy efforts for more open fonts :-) In case you haven't seen it yet, we've put down a few answers to the what's-in-it-for-me? question from a designer's perspective over on the OpenFontLibrary wiki: http://openfontlibrary.org/wiki/DesignersPerspectiveOpenFonts And there's always the OFL FAQ: http://scripts.sil.org/OFL-FAQ_web Might turn out to be helpful in your conversations with upstream designers. We're planning to improve the content of the wiki page and your experience and feedback on all these issues is of course also very welcome :-) Cheers, -- Nicolas Spalinger, NRSI volunteer Debian/Ubuntu font teams / OpenFontLibrary http://planet.open-fonts.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 260 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From rotru at br.ibm.com Wed Oct 14 19:00:21 2009 From: rotru at br.ibm.com (rotru at br.ibm.com) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:00:21 -0300 Subject: fonts.dir and fonts.scale Message-ID: Hi, I have an old IBM fonts package used internally only and I'm willing to repackage it with the latest Fedora's Font Policy to use it on Fedora 12. I have read the policies pages and I am a bit confused with the lot of information there. I split the package in 3 new ones (simple) for each font family and gave the proper names. My doubt is: the old package creates the files fonts.dir and fonts.scale during package installation (%post) using 'ttmkfdir' and 'mkfontdir' . Can someone tell me if this files are still necessary in Fedora12 or 11 ? Should I create them ? I see that some F11 packages have this files, but others do not. I appreciate any help. Regards Rodrigo Trujillo Software Engineer Linux Technology Center - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Oct 14 19:47:16 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:47:16 +0200 Subject: fonts.dir and fonts.scale In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Le Mer 14 octobre 2009 21:00, rotru at br.ibm.com a ?crit : > Hi, Hi Rodrigo, > I have read the policies pages and I am a bit confused with the lot of > information there. They've already been simplified for F-11, but if you have ideas on how to improve them, they'll be very welcome. > I split the package in 3 new ones (simple) for each font family and gave > the proper names. My > doubt is: the old package creates the files fonts.dir and fonts.scale > during package installation > (%post) using 'ttmkfdir' and 'mkfontdir' . Can someone tell me if this > files are still necessary in > Fedora12 or 11 ? Should I create them ? fonts.dir and fonts.scale are used by the old X11 "core" font backend. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy#Core_fonts It's been deprecated in favour of client-side font management (fontconfig) for about 7 years (replacing the X11 core font backend with fontconfig could probably be considered the first step that lead to modern modularized xorg). Nowadays almost nothing important uses the X11 core font backend in Fedora (even emacs finally switched and emacs is not exactly an agile project) That being said many proprietary or niche software packages still use the old system because they either do not care a lot about i18n, or about Linux, or want code that works the same way on antique 'classic' Unix systems (less-antique Unix systems use fontconfig just as Linux as every single major GUI package requires it nowadays). If you want to expose your fonts in the core font system you'll need to include fonts.* and symlink the directory you deploy your fonts in to /etc/X11/fontpath.d/ (note that software that still uses the old font system is likely to go bang if you feed it a modern font). Fedora-side, we're not encouraging people to register new fonts in the core font system. We're keeping just enough old core fonts to make old apps happy (and don't install them by default anymore, so people who depend on them have to request them explicitely, and not continue to ignore the software landscape has changed) I hope this is somewhat clearer. -- Nicolas Mailhot From ozamosi at flukkost.nu Thu Oct 15 13:21:57 2009 From: ozamosi at flukkost.nu (Robin Sonefors) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:21:57 +0200 Subject: Font package review request for AnonymousPro Message-ID: <1255612917.2203.1096.camel@pmmp> Hi After reading Mairin's Unpackaged Font of the Week post yesterday, I decided to try packaging it. The result is a review request at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529196 I've never done RPM packages before, so realistically there should be some mistakes. I'd be thankful for having those pointed out to me. Thanks, Robin Sonefors From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Oct 15 13:30:00 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:30:00 +0200 Subject: Font package review request for AnonymousPro In-Reply-To: <1255612917.2203.1096.camel@pmmp> References: <1255612917.2203.1096.camel@pmmp> Message-ID: Le Jeu 15 octobre 2009 15:21, Robin Sonefors a ?crit : > After reading Mairin's Unpackaged Font of the Week post yesterday, I > decided to try packaging it. Great decision! Welcome! > The result is a review request at > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529196 > I've never done RPM packages before, so realistically there should be > some mistakes. I'd be thankful for having those pointed out to me. Note that if you're not already a packager, the process will involve getting packager access. I can authorize you, but not based on a single package submission. So you probably want to identify another unpackaged font you like and start packaging it too. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From hedayat at grad.com Mon Oct 19 13:22:53 2009 From: hedayat at grad.com (Hedayat Vatankhah) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:52:53 +0330 Subject: SIL Scheherazade font is now in Fedora Message-ID: <4ADC682D.2050302@grad.com> Hi all, The packaging process of SIL Scheherazade font (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIL_Scheherazade_fonts) is now completed and it is going to the living phase! :) Also, SIL Lateef font will finish the birth phase soon and go to the living phase. Good luck, Hedayat From john.brown009 at gmail.com Sun Oct 25 21:39:16 2009 From: john.brown009 at gmail.com (TK009) Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:39:16 -0400 Subject: Hello and Tiza Fonts packaged for review Message-ID: <20091025213916.GA4103@blackhare> Hello everyone, Nevermind the name in the email =), my name is Edward (irc tk009). I have packaged the NS Tiza font: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/NS_Tiza_fonts and created a Review Request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530880 Please go easy on the new guy =) Edward From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Oct 26 21:11:35 2009 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:41:35 +0530 Subject: Web Open Font Format for Firefox 3.6 Message-ID: <4AE61087.70007@fedoraproject.org> Hi, Just FYI, http://hacks.mozilla.org/2009/10/woff/ Rahul From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Tue Oct 27 23:29:29 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:29:29 +0100 Subject: New fontpackages releases Message-ID: <8833c69b76bc358c91d0d3d3ea77dbc6.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Dear all, I've pushed two fontpackages releases lately. 1.28 This version is the product of a major refactoring of repo-font audit to make it generally useful to the individual font packager. You can use it on a local yum repo to QA your own packages before publishing them more widely. It is also able to generate maintainer nagmails. However, no new tests were added in this version. 1.28 is considered very stable and has been pushed to F-11. As a side-effect, that means fontpackages-devel in F-11 is now up-to-date regarding all the fontconfig templates written in the past 8 months (last fontpackages pushed to F-11 was 1.20). 1.29 This version adds fontconfig script coverage and unicode block coverage tests to repo-font-audit (any package that contains a font file that needs less than 10 glyphs to cover a new script or block will be flagged). Interestingly many fonts fail the script coverage test while passing the unicode block one, which seems to imply most font authors are not aware they're only missing a few glyphs to cover more scripts, and be useful in more regions. Please relay those failures upstream. 1.29 also adds fontlint to the test list. Since fontlint is very strict and would reject pretty much every font in Fedora if left alone, I've used the highly scientific method of filtering out the most common errors to limit the test failures (on the grounds that if a large number of fonts do the same mistakes, apps had to learn how to cope with it). If I should filter something else, feel free to argue your case on the list. I'm not 100% sure my filtering is perfect, just that it's good enough for a first try. Those three new tests will flag many more font files than previously, so expect new error reports. The coverage tests should be pretty solid. I'm less sure about fontlint. However, since after filtering fonts fail fontlint for many different reasons, I'm afraid those are real bugs and reflect poor FLOSS font QA (SIL fonts pass fontlint with colors, so it is achievable). 1.29 has been pushed to F-12 and devel. It will be used in the next rawhide test run (probably by the end of the month). -- Nicolas Mailhot From paul at frixxon.co.uk Fri Oct 30 15:02:59 2009 From: paul at frixxon.co.uk (Paul Flo Williams) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:02:59 -0000 (UTC) Subject: What would be considered a fault in font encodings? Message-ID: <5a586c869495e9ca312086343f375828.squirrel@frixxon.co.uk.mail.aaisp.net.uk> I'm new here, so a paragraph of introduction first. I've just dug some fonts I created over a decade ago off some old disks and I thought I'd find out how to publish them and use them in Fedora, which led me to the Fonts SIG pages, and this list. So far, I've updated the first font using FontForge, and I'm now looking at publishing it on openfontlibrary.org before trying to package it. I've been reading the Fonts SIG pages, taking notes on common packaging errors by reading the package reviews, and examining existing fonts, which leads me to my first problem. I've downloaded a load of Fedora 11 font packages and I've been examining them in Fontmatrix, being nosy about licence and description metadata, and I found that BrettFont's name doesn't display properly in Fontmatrix; the "BrettFont Regular" shows up with the notdef square where the space should be. I was wondering whether this was a fault in the font or Fontmatrix, so I pulled brettfont.ttf into FontForge, and it spat these errors: The glyph named space is mapped to U+00A0. But its name indicates it should be mapped to U+0020. The glyph named hyphen is mapped to U+00AD. But its name indicates it should be mapped to U+002D. The glyph named semicolon is mapped to U+037E. But its name indicates it should be mapped to U+003B. The glyph named Delta is mapped to U+2206. But its name indicates it should be mapped to U+0394. I've used ttx from fonttools to dump the font and sure enough, space is only mapped to 0x20 in the Macintosh Roman (1,0) cmap -- in both the Unicode (0,3) and Microsoft Unicode (3,1) cmaps, space only maps to 0xa0, no break space. Because I'm new to TrueType and fontconfig, I assume that BrettFont appears to work in Inkscape because of glyph substitution. As an aside, ttx won't dump BrettFont correctly, even with Agira Tagoh's patch from BZ 512504, because there's another problem with the "gasp" table. I guess I've got two fault reports to raise already, but I wanted to check whether I'd done anything stupid in all the above, and I wondered whether loading a font into FontForge and raising errors upstream would be part of the normal workflow of a font packager? Are there any reports from FontForge that are thought to be too pedantic to bother with? Sorry, lots of questions in one post! Paul. From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Fri Oct 30 19:27:06 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:27:06 +0100 Subject: What would be considered a fault in font encodings? Message-ID: <96a17c1df2eda7d0684cb65b56faa2f8.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Le Ven 30 octobre 2009 16:02, Paul Flo Williams a ?crit : Welcome Paul, And thank you for this very interesting message > I guess I've got two fault reports to raise already, but I wanted to check whether I'd done anything stupid in all the above, and I wondered whether loading a font into FontForge and raising errors upstream would be part of the normal workflow of a font packager? Are there any reports from FontForge that are thought to be too pedantic to bother with? Fonts are a technical/artistic object. To be honest, the technical quality of FLOSS fonts vary wildly and some are very poor. This is due to many factors: A. the requirements are complex and evolving ? the font standards are complex and evolving (opentype, unicode, cid tables, etc). If one does not allocate resources to maintenance, a font file will slowly become irrelevant, even if it was perfect to start with. But all to often, authors release fonts as abandon-ware ? the technical environment changes: today's screens and printers are not the same as a decade ago, the font libs have been replaced in all OSes and do not care about the same elements as before ? font usage changes too: languages that were irrelevant before (because no software could manage them) are now widely used, gimp/inkscape/scribus means complex documents can now be produced by more than the small minority that can afford Adobe prices (and can buy font collections) B. FLOSS font authors are poorly equipped to deal with them ? many font authors have an artistic, not technical background ? many font authors still create fonts in isolation (the lone brilliant artist myth), and therefore do not benefit from the support and structuring larger organizations can provide ? the tooling, frankly, sucks (I believe this is also the case proprietary side, foundries manage thanks to better organization) C. FLOSS hackers did not help a lot. Hackers have very low font needs: code is ASCII only, does not need scaling, does not need font effects, so a simple bitmap monospace ascii font with a single regular face will make them happy. Many of them do not understand to this day the complexity required to satisfy the needs of other "normal" users. So they write countless video players or mail apps, but very few of them even think about the text rendering part. We do have several examples that show technically excellent complex FLOSS fonts are possible (DejaVu, SIL fonts, etc) but they are very much the exception. I believe distributions could play a key role here by helping font authors to identify the problems in their fonts, what the low hanging fruits are, what are the conventions worth following. They should also help relay font author wishes tooling-side, and help relay font lib writers wishes font author-side. This is what they already routinely do for code; there is no reason they could not do it for other technical objects such as fonts (plus they need to do it: if we continue to rely on the GNOME Foundation, Red Hat, or Google, to buy expensive closed fonts, and re-license them, there is no way we'll be able to compete with desktops that include much wider font offerings by default in the long term). But, this is a could. Lots of work needs to be done for this to happen. We need to identify the technical problems that need fixing. We need to write tests to find them in fonts. We need to communicate the results to font authors. We need to document the usual way to fix each of them. As a first step, I've spent the last months writing an auditing script in my free time. Yesterday I did a fist mailing based on this script. http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/fontpackages.git?p=fontpackages.git;a=history;f=bin/repo-font-audit It is by no means complete or perfect. There are many problems I do not test for. Some tests (such as fontlint) are woefully inadequate: fontlint will error on problems we do not really care about (because they're so prevalent font libs learnt to workaround them), but only warn about metadata problems that can be fixed easily and are inter-operability problems (how do you share a document that references a particular font, if its name is not the same on every system?). Fontlint will also generally forget to tell you what the consequences of X or Y are and how one could fix it. Still, it is way better than we had before. Before, we had nothing. Unfortunately, the feedback so far has been negative and hostile. People who packaged a static font blob thinking it needed no maintenance do not like discovering it needs some. Sometimes they are aggressive because upstream vanished and so they feel they can not do anything. Sometimes they have problems understanding the messages the script output. It is very hard to overcome inertia and bad habits. The current font situation is bad but doing nothing and shooting the messenger is always an attractive proposition. I could really use help to improve the wording of my audit messages, so they are clearer to the people who get on in their inbox and they do not feel aggressed by them. This seems very simple, but it is incredibly important to get things to change. If you are interested to make floss fonts better, and have some time to donate, there is a lot of work to do. As you noted one first step could be to triage fontlint output, and make it more useful. (add explanations, review error criticity, try to output something scripts can easily be fed, etc). The number of people working on the subject right now is really to low to make quick progress. Any new contributor would make a huge difference. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- Nicolas Mailhot From sanjay.ankur at gmail.com Sat Oct 31 08:03:39 2009 From: sanjay.ankur at gmail.com (Ankur Sinha) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:33:39 +0530 Subject: "Problems detected in the oldstandard-sfd-fonts rawhide package!" In-Reply-To: <20091029221341.GA31040@arekh.okg> References: <20091029221341.GA31040@arekh.okg> Message-ID: <1256976219.2708.19.camel@localhost> On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 23:13 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Dear packager, > > At 20091029T192211Z, while scanning the rawhide repository located at: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/static-repos/dist-rawhide-current/x86_64/ > I have identified the following problems in your oldstandard-sfd-fonts package: > > SRPM RPM 17 > oldstandard-sfd-fonts oldstandard-sfd-fonts 3 > Total 3 > > 17. Fonts with partial script coverage > > ? Some font files included in the package are missing only a few glyphs to be > accepted by fontconfig as covering one or several scripts. Therefore they > could be made useful to more people with only a little effort. > > To check a font file script coverage, run fc-query with FC_DEBUG=256 and > look for lines like: script-id?(number) { list-of-unicode-codepoints } > > For example ?mi(2) { 1e34 1e35 }? means fontconfig will accept the tested > file for Maori if codepoints 1e34 and 1e35 are added. > > If you feel fontconfig is requiring a glyph which is not strictly necessary > for a particular script, report the problem upstream?. > > ? http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php > ? https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=fontconfig > > Please take the appropriate measures to fix the oldstandard-sfd-fonts package. > > I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran. > > Your friendly QA robot, > hi, I got this email, one each for *every* font package that I maintain. I don't exactly understand what I'm supposed to do to fix the package. Can someone please outline the procedure? I ran fc-query on one of the files: [Package at Ankur gargi-1.9]$ fc-query gargi.ttf Pattern has 20 elts (size 32) family: "gargi"(s) familylang: "en"(s) style: "Medium"(s) stylelang: "en"(s) fullname: "gargi"(s) fullnamelang: "en"(s) slant: 0(i)(s) weight: 100(i)(s) width: 100(i)(s) foundry: "unknown"(s) file: "gargi.ttf"(s) index: 0(i)(s) outline: FcTrue(s) scalable: FcTrue(s) charset: 0000: 00000000 ffffffff ffffffff 7fffffff 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 0009: fffffffe fbffffff ff3fbfff 007fffff 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 0020: 77193000 00010043 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 0022: 00040000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00e9: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000700 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 (s) lang: bh|bho|fj|hi|hne|ho|ia|ie|io|kj|kok|kwm|mai|mr|ms|ne|ng|nr|om|rn| rw|sa|sn|so|ss|st|sw|ts|uz|xh|za|zu(s) fontversion: 124518(i)(s) capability: "otlayout:DFLT otlayout:deva"(s) fontformat: "TrueType"(s) decorative: FcFalse(s) Is this what's supposed to be done? If "yes", what now? If "no", please correct me :) -- regards, Ankur From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Oct 31 09:26:27 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 10:26:27 +0100 Subject: "Problems detected in the oldstandard-sfd-fonts rawhide package!" In-Reply-To: <1256976219.2708.19.camel@localhost> References: <20091029221341.GA31040@arekh.okg> <1256976219.2708.19.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <9e7b1be159cba69fcef28534b2ce9361.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Le Sam 31 octobre 2009 09:03, Ankur Sinha a ?crit : Hi Ankur, > On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 23:13 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> 17. Fonts with partial script coverage >> >> ? Some font files included in the package are missing only a few glyphs >> to be >> accepted by fontconfig as covering one or several scripts. Therefore >> they >> could be made useful to more people with only a little effort. >> >> To check a font file script coverage, run fc-query with FC_DEBUG=256 and >> look for lines like: script-id?(number) { list-of-unicode-codepoints } >> > I got this email, one each for *every* font package that I maintain. If your packages only fail test 17 they're in pretty good shape. > I > don't exactly understand what I'm supposed to do to fix the package. Can > someone please outline the procedure? > > I ran fc-query on one of the files: You need to run it with debug set to 256 to see the coverage warnings (FC_DEBUG=256 fc-query my-file). You also have a pre-computed fc-query output in the tar.xz attached to the message. Almost no one knows this so very few font authors have checked their coverage according to fontconfig so far and many fonts could easily be fixed to cover more scripts. When you see that according to fc-query one of the packaged fonts needs X, Y and Z to fully cover A script, you can relay the info to the font author so he completes his font. Of course fontconfig is not perfect so if you see it wants X for A, but that makes no sense to you, you can open a bug fontconfig-side to have its rules for A changed. fc-query only warns when it needs less than 10 glyphs to complete a script; considering the typical font includes hundreds of those that's a very small effort for the font author. Lastly if you have artistic skills you can always draw the missing glyphs and propose them as patches upstream. But I doubt many of out packagers will chose this option. Well, that just shows repo-font-audit messaging could be improved. Text suggestions are welcome :p Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From john.brown009 at gmail.com Sat Oct 31 09:57:00 2009 From: john.brown009 at gmail.com (TK009) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 05:57:00 -0400 Subject: "Problems detected in the oldstandard-sfd-fonts rawhide package!" In-Reply-To: <9e7b1be159cba69fcef28534b2ce9361.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> References: <20091029221341.GA31040@arekh.okg> <1256976219.2708.19.camel@localhost> <9e7b1be159cba69fcef28534b2ce9361.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <20091031095700.GA2448@blackhare> Running FC_DEBUG=256 against ns-tiza gives me a list of about 50 scripts. Is a list that size normal? From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Oct 31 10:15:36 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:15:36 +0100 Subject: "Problems detected in the oldstandard-sfd-fonts rawhide package!" In-Reply-To: <20091031095700.GA2448@blackhare> References: <20091029221341.GA31040@arekh.okg> <1256976219.2708.19.camel@localhost> <9e7b1be159cba69fcef28534b2ce9361.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <20091031095700.GA2448@blackhare> Message-ID: <0f7afffc587b1760f6ca96d95940c047.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Le Sam 31 octobre 2009 10:57, TK009 a ?crit : > > Running FC_DEBUG=256 against ns-tiza gives me a list of about 50 scripts. Is a > list that size normal? Many latin scripts use ASCII + one or two additional glyphs. If tiza's author drawed basic latin (=ascii) only, I wouldn't be surprised the list was very long. It means that Tiza could almost be used, but not quite, by a lot of people. This is a shame. Please relay it to the font author -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Oct 31 10:19:06 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:19:06 +0100 Subject: "Problems detected in the oldstandard-sfd-fonts rawhide package!" In-Reply-To: <0f7afffc587b1760f6ca96d95940c047.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> References: <20091029221341.GA31040@arekh.okg> <1256976219.2708.19.camel@localhost> <9e7b1be159cba69fcef28534b2ce9361.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <20091031095700.GA2448@blackhare> <0f7afffc587b1760f6ca96d95940c047.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <81b81732f899f293c36a6d7200754d6c.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Le Sam 31 octobre 2009 11:15, Nicolas Mailhot a ?crit : > > Le Sam 31 octobre 2009 10:57, TK009 a ?crit : >> >> Running FC_DEBUG=256 against ns-tiza gives me a list of about 50 scripts. Is >> a >> list that size normal? > > Many latin scripts use ASCII + one or two additional glyphs. If tiza's author > drawed basic latin (=ascii) only, I wouldn't be surprised the list was very > long. > > It means that Tiza could almost be used, but not quite, by a lot of people. > This is a shame. Please relay it to the font author Of course please only relay elements of the form foo(2) { 1e34 1e35 } foo(0) means the coverage for foo is complete foo(big number) means the coverage is incomplete, but you should not bother upstream with something that needs a large effort (big number glyphs) on their part. -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Oct 31 10:29:13 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 11:29:13 +0100 Subject: "Problems detected in the oldstandard-sfd-fonts rawhide package!" Message-ID: Le Sam 31 octobre 2009 11:15, Nicolas Mailhot a ?crit : > > Le Sam 31 octobre 2009 10:57, TK009 a ?crit : >> >> Running FC_DEBUG=256 against ns-tiza gives me a list of about 50 scripts. Is a >> list that size normal? > > Many latin scripts use ASCII + one or two additional glyphs. If tiza's author drawed basic latin (=ascii) only, I wouldn't be surprised the list was very long. > > It means that Tiza could almost be used, but not quite, by a lot of people. This is a shame. Please relay it to the font author Of course please only relay elements of the form foo(2) { 1e34 1e35 } foo(0) means the coverage for foo is complete foo(big number) means the coverage is incomplete, but you should not bother upstream with something that needs a large effort (big number glyphs) on their part. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- Nicolas Mailhot From john.brown009 at gmail.com Sat Oct 31 10:32:42 2009 From: john.brown009 at gmail.com (TK009) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 06:32:42 -0400 Subject: "Problems detected in the oldstandard-sfd-fonts rawhide package!" In-Reply-To: <81b81732f899f293c36a6d7200754d6c.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> References: <20091029221341.GA31040@arekh.okg> <1256976219.2708.19.camel@localhost> <9e7b1be159cba69fcef28534b2ce9361.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <20091031095700.GA2448@blackhare> <0f7afffc587b1760f6ca96d95940c047.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> <81b81732f899f293c36a6d7200754d6c.squirrel@arekh.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <20091031103242.GB2448@blackhare> most need only one or two to complete. 7 of them could be fixed with just two glyph's, I am sure there are more like that in the list.As I have no artistic skill what so ever, I'll let the creator know. From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sat Oct 31 14:48:29 2009 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:48:29 +0100 Subject: New audit messages Message-ID: Hi all, I did what I could based on current feedback to improve the audit messages and make them clearer and less threatening. If you didn't feel comfortable with the previous version, please check the new text and tell me what you think about it (what you don't like, suggestions to make it better, patches, etc http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/fontpackages.git?p=fontpackages.git;a=blob;f=bin/repo-font-audit -- Nicolas Mailhot