March 2020 - fonts-bugs - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 1811295] Review Request: intel-clear-sans-fonts - A versatile font family for screen, print, and Web

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811295 --- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla <gwync(a)protonmail.com> --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/intel-clear-sans-fonts -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1816808] New: fonttools-4.6.0 is available

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1816808 Bug ID: 1816808 Summary: fonttools-4.6.0 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: fonttools Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: pnemade(a)redhat.com Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, pnemade(a)redhat.com, sshedmak(a)redhat.com, tagoh(a)redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Latest upstream release: 4.6.0 Current version/release in rawhide: 4.5.0-1.fc33 URL: https://github.com/fonttools/fonttools/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/7388/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 2 months

1
4
0 / 0

[Bug 1815684] New: font installation fails with FcCacheFini assertion (using fontconfig 2.13.92-7)

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815684 Bug ID: 1815684 Summary: font installation fails with FcCacheFini assertion (using fontconfig 2.13.92-7) Product: Fedora Version: 32 Status: NEW Component: fontconfig Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com Reporter: klember(a)redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: ajax(a)redhat.com, caillon+fedoraproject(a)gmail.com, fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, gnome-sig(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, john.j5live(a)gmail.com, mclasen(a)redhat.com, pnemade(a)redhat.com, rhughes(a)redhat.com, rstrode(a)redhat.com, sandmann(a)redhat.com, tagoh(a)redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora I'm running into the following scriptlet failure when installing font packages in a container: 2020-03-20 21:48:58,014 - atomic_reactor.util - DEBUG - Running scriptlet: google-crosextra-carlito-fonts-1.103-0.12.201309 532/532 2020-03-20 21:48:59,727 - atomic_reactor.util - DEBUG - /usr/share/fonts: failed to write cache 2020-03-20 21:48:59,727 - atomic_reactor.util - DEBUG - fc-cache-64: fccache.c:795: FcCacheFini: Assertion `fcCacheChains[i] == NULL' failed. 2020-03-20 21:48:59,727 - atomic_reactor.util - DEBUG - /usr/bin/fc-cache: line 4: 351 Aborted (core dumped) /usr/bin/fc-cache-64 "$@" This is with fontconfig-2.13.92-7.fc32.x86_64 that is already supposed to have a FcCacheFini assertion fix. Full container build log: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2972/42642972/x86_64.log -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 2 months

1
7
0 / 0

[Bug 1811295] Review Request: intel-clear-sans-fonts - A versatile font family for screen, print, and Web

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811295 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zebob.m(a)gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> --- Package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/intel-clear-sans-fonts/review-intel-clear- sans-fonts/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: intel-clear-sans-fonts-1.00-3.fc33.noarch.rpm intel-clear-sans-fonts-1.00-3.fc33.src.rpm intel-clear-sans-fonts.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1543407] fontawesome-fonts-5.13.0 is available

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1543407 --- Comment #36 from Upstream Release Monitoring <upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org> --- The following Sources of the specfile are not valid URLs so we cannot automatically build the new version for you. Please use URLs in your Source declarations if possible. - fontawesome-fonts-fontconfig.conf - README-Trademarks.txt -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1543407] fontawesome-fonts-5.13.0 is available

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1543407 Upstream Release Monitoring <upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|fontawesome-fonts-5.12.1 is |fontawesome-fonts-5.13.0 is |available |available --- Comment #35 from Upstream Release Monitoring <upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org> --- Latest upstream release: 5.13.0 Current version/release in rawhide: 4.7.0-8.fc32 URL: http://fontawesome.io Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/826/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 683325] pidgin freezes for some specific messages and window size

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683325 --- Comment #23 from Andrew Travneff <travneff(a)gmail.com> --- Created attachment 1672691 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1672691&action=edit five backtraces from gdb (In reply to Peng Wu from comment #22) > Could you provide the gdb backtrace? Is there a better way for it than hitting ctrl+c at random moments? Might be not accurate. Attaching 5 samples done like this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1809918] Review Request: afdko - Adobe Font Development Kit for OpenType

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809918 --- Comment #4 from vishalvvr <vishalvijayraghavan(a)gmail.com> --- Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vishalvvr/afdko/fedora... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/vishalvvr/afdko/fedora... Note: Thanks Nicolas for suggesting this update, Yes i do feel renaming package to adobe-afdko makes sense. Updated the package as per the suggestions mentioned above. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1815128] Degree sign and other symbols not showing correctly in R graphics on Fedora 31/32

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1815128 Peng Wu <pwu(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value --- Comment #2 from Peng Wu <pwu(a)redhat.com> --- In pango 1.44, pango switch to use harfbuzz and dropped Adobe Type 1 font support. We suggest to use makeotf from Adobe Font Development Kit for OpenType to convert the PostScript fonts to OpenType fonts. URL: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1809918 Before that, maybe you could try to use makeotf to convert the fonts, and install the fonts into ~/.local/share/fonts/ . Maybe the above conversion can make the Degree sign work again. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 683325] pidgin freezes for some specific messages and window size

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683325 --- Comment #22 from Peng Wu <pwu(a)redhat.com> --- Could you provide the gdb backtrace? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

4 years, 2 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts-bugs March 2020