[Bug 2044960] New: F36FailsToInstall: python3-fonttools+unicode
by bugzilla＠redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2044960
Bug ID: 2044960
Summary: F36FailsToInstall: python3-fonttools+unicode
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: fonttools
Assignee: pnemade(a)redhat.com
Reporter: mhroncok(a)redhat.com
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
Blocks: 1992487 (F36FailsToInstall,RAWHIDEFailsToInstall)
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Hello,
Please note that this comment was generated automatically. If you feel that
this output has mistakes, please contact me via email (mhroncok(a)redhat.com).
Your package (fonttools) Fails To Install in Fedora 36:
can't install python3-fonttools+unicode:
- nothing provides python3.10dist(unicodedata2) >= 14 needed by
python3-fonttools+unicode-4.29.0-1.fc36.noarch
If you know about this problem and are planning on fixing it, please
acknowledge so by setting the bug status to ASSIGNED. If you don't have time to
maintain this package, consider orphaning it, so maintainers of dependent
packages realize the problem.
If you don't react accordingly to the policy for FTBFS/FTI bugs
(https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fai...),
your package may be orphaned in 8+ weeks.
P.S. The data was generated solely from koji buildroot, so it might be newer
than the latest compose or the content on mirrors.
P.P.S. If this bug has been reported in the middle of upgrading multiple
dependent packages, please consider using side tags:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#updating-inter...
Thanks!
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1992487
[Bug 1992487] Fedora 36 Fails To install Tracker
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2044960
1 year, 10 months
[Bug 2062386] New: strange font priorities in Firefox
by bugzilla＠redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2062386
Bug ID: 2062386
Summary: strange font priorities in Firefox
Product: Fedora
Version: 35
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Fonts
Assignee: i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Reporter: skyfaller(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Description of problem:
Sometimes, when using a native font stack in CSS on a web page, fonts that are
not in the font stack at all are substituted for the desired fonts.
This only seems to affect web pages viewed using:
- Fedora (not Ubuntu, Debian 11, or Manjaro)
- Firefox (not Chrome or Chromium)
- When using the RPM version or Mozilla's official build from their website
(not the Flatpak)
Happens in the stable version of Firefox, Firefox Beta, and Firefox nightly.
Two substitutions I've identified so far:
- Droid Sans is substituted for Open Sans
- P052 is substituted for 'URW Palladio L' or Palatino
Substituting for Palatino may be less objectionable, since that's a generic
choice, but URW Palladio L is rather specific and it's surprising to see the
substitution. This also wouldn't be as objectionable if the font substitutions
were better. Droid Sans doesn't look much like Open Sans at all, and P052 looks
really ugly (it has unevenly sized letters). In Firefox Flatpak, it instead
substitutes the better-looking 'TeX Gyre Pagella', and only does that for
Palatino, not for 'URW Palladio L' (which was higher priority in my font
stack). This is more desirable behavior.
The source of the problem seems to be that if you run the following command:
fc-match :family="Open Sans"
It returns Droid Sans.
Possibly related bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820166
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1406790
How reproducible:
Consistently
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Open a clean Fedora 35 install, and verify that Open Sans is not installed.
2. Create the following web page and view it in a browser:
```
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
<title></title>
<style>
h1,h2,h3,h4 {
font-family: Open Sans, Fira Sans;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Hello World</h1>
<p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.</p>
</body>
</html>
```
Alternately, view a real live (but more complex) website at
https://www.maximumethics.dev/
Actual results:
Notice that the text on the webpage is displayed in Droid Sans, not Open Sans.
Expected results:
The webpage displays the next available font in the font stack, Fira Sans in
this case, or the browser's default font if you don't have Fira Sans.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2062386
1 year, 10 months
[Bug 1925922] New: dependency loop with harfbuzz confuses
xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi installation??
by bugzilla＠redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925922
Bug ID: 1925922
Summary: dependency loop with harfbuzz confuses
xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi installation??
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Status: NEW
Component: freetype
Assignee: mkasik(a)redhat.com
Reporter: mtasaka(a)fedoraproject.org
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,
kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org, mclasen(a)redhat.com,
mkasik(a)redhat.com, rhughes(a)redhat.com,
rstrode(a)redhat.com, sandmann(a)redhat.com
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Description of problem:
Comparing:
Fedora-Scientific_KDE-Live-Rawhide-20210205.n.0 [SUCCESS]
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1703766
Fedora-Scientific_KDE-Live-Rawhide-20210206.n.0 [FAIL]
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61447565
The latter one has scriptlet error:
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/7565/61447565/anaconda-pac...
```
08:06:12,730 INF packaging: Installed: xorg-x11-font-utils-1:7.5-48.fc34.x86_64
1611907579 2b7ebb243e1e82d3cb66c5268fc9a1d9e43b3a80385b0832bb42d2841859e4c6
08:06:12,768 INF packaging: Configuring (running scriptlet for):
xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi-7.5-27.fc34.noarch 1611907303
d34990ca2d30c51a49e168a636361c94eb9ec4a4995ed5724c9aab2cea71ac1f
08:06:12,789 INF dnf.rpm: mkfontscale: error while loading shared libraries:
libfreetype.so.6: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
warning: %post(xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi-7.5-27.fc34.noarch) scriptlet
failed, exit status 127
```
Note that /usr/bin/mkfontscale is in xorg-x11-font-utils-1:7.5-48.fc34.x86_64 ,
which surely Requires "libfreetype.so.6()(64bit)", but freetype is not
installed when trying to run scriptlet for xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi.
Comparing the above two, I guess the change in freetype is causing this -
dependency loop between freetype and harfbuzz perhaps makes dnf to "postpone"
installation of both packages.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
xorg-x11-font-utils-1:7.5-48.fc34.x86_64
xorg-x11-fonts-ISO8859-1-100dpi-7.5-27.fc34.noarch
freetype-2.10.4-3.fc34.x86_64
harfbuzz-2.7.4-3.fc34.x86_64
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
1 year, 10 months
[Bug 1999240] New: OpenDyslexicMono-Regular is missing
by bugzilla＠redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999240
Bug ID: 1999240
Summary: OpenDyslexicMono-Regular is missing
Product: Fedora
Version: 34
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: opendyslexic-fonts
Assignee: spotrh(a)gmail.com
Reporter: mikaela(a)mikaela.info
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, spotrh(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Description of problem:
The package opendyslexic-fonts doesn't include the monospace variant
OpenDyslexicMono-Regular. It however exists in upstream (e.g.
https://github.com/OpenDyslexic/opendyslexic-chrome/blob/11.0.0/app/fonts...)
and Debian.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
0.600
How reproducible:
Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. sudo dnf install opendyslexic-fonts
2. sudo updatedb
3. locate opendyslexic|grep Mono
Actual results:
The file OpenDyslexicMono-Regular.otf isn't found or visible in any font
selector.
Expected results:
/usr/share/fonts/opentype/opendyslexic/OpenDyslexicMono-Regular.otf
on Debian and I think it should appear in font lists (my Debian is headless
though).
Additional info:
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
1 year, 10 months
[Bug 1894757] New: update kanjistrokeorders-fonts to v4.004
by bugzilla＠redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1894757
Bug ID: 1894757
Summary: update kanjistrokeorders-fonts to v4.004
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: kanjistrokeorders-fonts
Severity: low
Assignee: paul(a)frixxon.co.uk
Reporter: piejacker875(a)teknik.io
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
paul(a)frixxon.co.uk, rene.ribaud(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
a new version of the font is available https://www.nihilist.org.uk/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
1 year, 10 months
[Bug 2051879] Review Request: fbf-ani-fonts - Script like Bengali
Font
by bugzilla＠redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051879
--- Comment #8 from Benson Muite <benson_muite(a)emailplus.org> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- 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.
Note: License file Ani-copyright is not marked as %license
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[?]: 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", "GNU General Public License". 6 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/benson/Projects/FedoraPackaging/fbf-ani-fonts/2051879-fbf-ani-
fonts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[ ]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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]: 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.
[!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: 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.
fonts:
[!]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package.
Note: Cannot find repo-font-audit, install fontpackages-tools package
to make a comprehensive font review.
See: url: undefined
[!]: Run ttname on all fonts in package.
Note: Cannot find ttname command, install ttname package to make a
comprehensive font review.
See: url: undefined
Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Source checksums
----------------
http://www.nongnu.org/freebangfont/dl/ani-1.0.2.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
8b1812808c6249a2c5284fc5d11b72f926735a1e4d2b73fba2fcfb7caaeb41f7
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
8b1812808c6249a2c5284fc5d11b72f926735a1e4d2b73fba2fcfb7caaeb41f7
Requires
--------
fbf-ani-fonts (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
config(fbf-ani-fonts)
fontpackages-filesystem
Provides
--------
fbf-ani-fonts:
config(fbf-ani-fonts)
fbf-ani-fonts
font(ani)
font(অনি)
metainfo()
metainfo(org.fedoraproject.fbf-ani-fonts.metainfo.xml)
Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2051879
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, fonts, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, PHP, R, Python, C/C++, Perl,
Java
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
COMMENTS
1) Exceptions from GPL are unclear. Is it possible to elaborate on these?
2) Ani-about has some minor typos, perhaps use:
Ani is a open source opentype font relased under GNU GPL
It contains basic latin and Bengali characters with OpenType
tables for Bengali conjucts. It presently support Unicode 14.0
for Bengali. Characters are designed like hand written ones. .
3) The ttname and repo-font-audit tools are not currently useable, so can
ignore these
4) Minor suggestion, perhaps update the description in the spec file to:
Ani font contains Bengali and latin characters designed using a
hand written style. It was developed in 2002 and is currently updated
to the Unicode 14.0 standard.
5) In the spec file, rather than use
%global fonts *.ttf
use
%global fonts Ani.ttf
as the files should be explicitly specified
6) Primary architectures are listed at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures#Primary_Architectures and linked
from
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_...
and are
x86_64, AArch64 and ARM-hfp , on COPR, ARM-hfp is not yet enabled
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2051879
1 year, 11 months