3:01 a.m.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532523
Bug ID: 1532523
Summary: [google-droid-fonts] rebase to latest version
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: google-droid-fonts
Keywords: Improvement, Rebase
Severity: high
Priority: high
Assignee: nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net
Reporter: dkaspar(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net, paul(a)frixxon.co.uk,
tremble(a)tremble.org.uk
Description of problem:
Currently we are using outdated font versions (of google-droid-fonts) in
Fedora.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
google-droid-fonts-20120715-12.fc27
Expected results:
I would hereby like to request a rebase to latest version of
google-droid-fonts.
Additional info:
One of these fonts (DroidSansFallback.ttf) in the package is necessary for
Ghostscript to function correctly when rendering CJK glyphs.
And according to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines packages are forbidden to
bundle fonts inside them, therefore I am using the google-droid-fonts package.
But it's content is way older than what Ghostscript currently needs.
NOTE:
In case none of the maintainers is currently available, I'm able and willing to
do this rebase myself (I'm already maintainer of urw-base35-fonts) to help you.
You would just have to set commit right for me in the Pagure
(https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/google-droid-fonts).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
7:26 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1532523] [google-droid-fonts] rebase to latest version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532523
--- Comment #1 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] <dkaspar(a)redhat.com> ---
Any update on this, guys?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
8:58 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1532523] [google-droid-fonts] rebase to latest version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532523
--- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> ---
Hi,
Please don't wait on me to do the upgrade, I'm lost in a deep and dark pit of
Fedora Go packaging right now, and I don't think I'll emerge soon.
The Droid spec file should be fine as is but updating Droid usually requires
combing through many gigabytes of AOSP git trees. That takes time and
bandwidth. There is no formal process for releasing Droid Google-side, what's
in Fedora (or Google font library) is usually an obsolete version someone
managed to scrap from Android sources.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
10:57 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1532523] [google-droid-fonts] rebase to latest version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532523
--- Comment #4 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] <dkaspar(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Nicolas Mailhot from comment #2)
Hi,
Please don't wait on me to do the upgrade, I'm lost in a deep and dark pit
of Fedora Go packaging right now, and I don't think I'll emerge soon.
The Droid spec file should be fine as is but updating Droid usually requires
combing through many gigabytes of AOSP git trees. That takes time and
bandwidth. There is no formal process for releasing Droid Google-side,
what's in Fedora (or Google font library) is usually an obsolete version
someone managed to scrap from Android sources.
I would just update the Google's Droid Sans Fallback, Droid Sans Fallback Full,
and Droid Sans Mono, which are still present in repository. The rest doesn't
seem to receive an update before.
However, for that I need a commit rights for the repository in Fedora, to be
able to submit new sources. (I'm not proven packager.)
Best regards,
-- Dee'Kej --
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
9:58 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1532523] [google-droid-fonts] rebase to latest version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532523
David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] <dkaspar(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |needinfo?(nicolas.mailhot@l
| |aposte.net)
--- Comment #5 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] <dkaspar(a)redhat.com> ---
Any news guys? :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
11:23 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1532523] [google-droid-fonts] rebase to latest version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532523
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |petersen(a)redhat.com
--- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> ---
I just had a look in Android Git:
https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/base.git/+/kitkat-re...
seems the last release with a broad set of Droid fonts?
Currently very few fonts:
https://android.googlesource.com/platform/frameworks/base.git/+/oreo-rele...
Dunno if they were moved somewhere else or replaced?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
11:24 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1532523] [google-droid-fonts] rebase to latest version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532523
--- Comment #7 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> ---
Perhaps we could just updated the Fallback font and keep the rest as is?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
11:27 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 1532523] [google-droid-fonts] rebase to latest version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532523
--- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> ---
Or update to the KitKat fonts plus latest Oreo/master.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4:57 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1532523] [google-droid-fonts] rebase to latest version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532523
Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|needinfo?(nicolas.mailhot@l |
|aposte.net) |
--- Comment #9 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> ---
@Jens: we should pick the latest version of each component of Droid from all
the various android trees. Google has always been terrible at publishing this
font, they probably have a master version somewhere internal, we only see the
bits they deem suitable and they vary from Android release to release depending
on the other fonts in each release and the markets they wish to target (it may
even be that some droid bits are only in specific vendor branches).
The font is very nice but locating its parts is a lot of work.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
5:08 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1532523] [google-droid-fonts] rebase to latest version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532523
--- Comment #10 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> ---
PS Droid Fallback is a high coverage – low quality compromise. As a rule the
same glyphs in locale-specific Droid parts will always be higher quality.
That’s why the package tries to ship as many locale-specific bits as possible
and Droid has a complex fontconfig file that mashes everything in a single
droid family making sure fallback is only used when there is no better Droid
part available.
Well, the fontconfig file is not complex as in hard, it’s complex as a bit
involved and requiring enough packager involvement to understand the fontconfig
logic instead of cargo-culting default config file templates with no
understanding.
Noto should probably benefit from the same setup, as it has the same
characteristics (wide encoding font spread over many files that need merging in
a single Noto font family by fontconfig instead of forcing users to assemple
them manually)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
5:22 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 1532523] [google-droid-fonts] rebase to latest version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532523
--- Comment #11 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] <dkaspar(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Nicolas Mailhot from comment #9)
@Jens: we should pick the latest version of each component of Droid
from all
the various android trees. Google has always been terrible at publishing
this font, they probably have a master version somewhere internal, we only
see the bits they deem suitable and they vary from Android release to
release depending on the other fonts in each release and the markets they
wish to target (it may even be that some droid bits are only in specific
vendor branches).
The font is very nice but locating its parts is a lot of work.
From what I've seen/deduced from looking at the git repository logs, the Google
Droid is no longer used as primary fonts for CJK-based glyphs. From what I've
been told, people hated those fonts.
Google is switching to different fonts in Android because of it. IIRC they are
using Noto fonts for it as a replacement. IMHO it might make sense to start
dropping support of Google Droid Fonts in favor of Google Noto, since Google
Noto is still receiving updates...
For what I need from the fonts right now is just update of Google Droid
Fallback font. It seems outdated (in regards of timestamps & sizes) compared to
version that Ghostscript needs/is using.
If we can't get the update for the Droid Fallback, then I would have to bundle
the same font in Ghostscript package (so it functions as we need), which would
be also against Fedora Packaging Guidelines (I would like to avoid that).
NOTE: Ghostscript is using the Google Droid Fallback for displaying of CJK
glyphs in case the CJK-based documents do not contain embedded fonts for the
glyphs (or the necessary fonts are not installed on the system).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
2206
days inactive
2313
days old
fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org
10 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com