help with source package font path
by Qianqian Fang
hi
I thought that I sent an email asking this as followups for Bug#478891, but
just realized the email was never posted at bugzilla :(
anyway, I am still experiencing the incorrect font path error when compiling
wqy-zenhei-fonts with the new fontpackages templates. The error and my spec
file can be found at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478891#c3
and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478891#c4
basically, the installer first unpacked the upstream source tarball, and
then attempted to "cd wqy-zenhei-fonts-0.8.34", unfortunately, the upstream
package does not name the folder that way, simply "wqy-zenhei/", so the
installer quit.
I am wondering which variable controls the source folder name and how can I
fix this?
thank you
Qianqian
15 years, 2 months
Help request about hinting dev (Liberation Fonts).
by Caius Carlos CHANCE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I am currently maintaining Liberation Fonts project. As most of the bugs
that I received were in regard to hinting defects, I would like to ask
about info of font hinting.
As you might heard of, Liberation Fonts were shipped from commercial
fonts manufacturer, Ascender. The deliverable is in .TTF format. The
files were converted into .SFD format and hosted as open source project
on fedorahosted.org.
Unfortunately, along the project runs, there are bug reports of hinting
problem on certain characters. This has raised me the following needs of
info/knowledge:
- - Is there anyone in fedora community who could provide helpful info on
how to manage a high quality hinting?
- - Which free hinting tools are available other than fontforge?
- - Where could I find resources of hinting instructions? Precisely, full
specs of hinting instructions, such as parameter explanation of all
hinting instructions
- - If a CVT table has no comments on each value, do I have to do reverse
engineering and how should I begin?
As Mailhot's previous emails on new font packaging guidelines, he often
let us refer to Dejavu Fonts. I am wondering if I could catch up any of
Dejavu devs who don't mind kindly provide valuable info of hinting?
Thank you very much for reading.
Best Regards,
kaio
- --
Caius Chance, Soft Eng, I18N, Red Hat APAC, cchance AT redhat DOT com
JP (Qual), RHCE, MCSE, CCNA, JLPT4, http://apac.redhat.com/disclaimer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkmPgjQACgkQmo+B7bGj5dJaAACfX5rWtcoD9yEXFp6BOtp2ifWe
gjoAnAwkVW6HV9rf18qlaF6H6ue6aTVa
=5mvU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
15 years, 2 months
Re: FLOSS Multimedia Support in Fedora
by Nicolas Mailhot
Le lundi 09 février 2009 à 21:20 +0100, Martin Sourada a écrit :
> Well, not exactly, but yeah, in a sense it's similar. But don't forget
> we need to target more platforms than fedora or *nix.
You can always bundle the fonts separately for non *nix users.
> > > than requiring your users to either find it themselves and
> > > install it
> >
> > Fedora 11 will have automatic font installation for every app that cares
> > to support it.
> >
> Is it already in rawhide?
The autoprovides generation is. Though it still needs to be tweaked
before the F11 mass rebuild
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=994205
> If so, should I file bugs if say firefox does
> not display some fonts on wikipedia title page and does not fire any
> auto-installation dialog?
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=467729
> > > or being satisfied with a fallback font (which might not
> > > satisfy the artistic concerns that led you to the choice of the original
> > > font).
> >
> > Artistic concerns are fine and dandy but they usually sink on the legal
> > and i18n icebergs. Which I think the anime crowd at least cares about.
> >
> Well, when you choose a font for a sub, you usually check if it covers
> your characters usage.
Does not help a lot the next sub group. Yes japanese → language1 →
language2 subbing happens pretty often in the anime community
> Legal issues are harder to solve, but at least in
> fedora the fonts range is getting, thanks to your efforts, very
> promising.
Also please note that all the GPL fonts that do not explicitely declare
the FSF fonts exception are safe wrt CSS-like referencing but *not*
embedding.
> > BTW, we already ship fonts like Tiresias which were explicitely designed
> > for video titling.
> >
> Cool, is there a (wiki) page with font previews/coverage? Or do I still
> need to skim through Fonts group, install whatever seems like it would
> fit my needs and than test what I installed?
Right now, we don't have a preview system in Fedora :(
> It would definitely be
> useful for people looking for specific design/unicode coverage.
Font preview generators and how to embed previews in static wiki
pages/PK are being discussed in the open font library list right now.
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/openfontlibrary/2009-February/00176...
The need has already been identified, but someone needs to do the coding
work. Then I believe PK integration would follow quickly.
http://bugzilla.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18928
It's the obvious next step after building a reasonable font package
base.
> PS: maybe it would be better to forward this thread part to the -fonts
> list should there be any further discussion, I am subscribed there so
> you won't need to CC me.
Done :)
--
Nicolas Mailhot
15 years, 2 months
fontconfig questions
by Paul Lange
Hey,
I'm currently packaging Aurulent Sans:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Hartke_Aurulent_fonts
Everywhere is written, that it's a font who can be used as the primary
interface fonts. However at the moment (since 2007) there're only latin
glyphs with some more accents supported. Because of this I'm not sure
how to handle the fontconfig files. At the moment I'm really
conservative.
You can view my fontconfig files here:
http://palango.fedorapeople.org/aurulent/
I currently only mark them only as sans-serif/monospace because I think
they are not yet ready for a primary interface font.
I set the fontconfig-prefix of the sans-serif one to 61 (only latin) and
of the monospace to 64 (only latin, only regular). Any comments on this?
regards,
Paul
15 years, 2 months
New fonts not on wishlist?
by Stephen Carter
Greetings,
I just had a quick question: If I happen to stumble across a new font
that isn't packaged yet, and isn't on the wishlist, would it be alright
if I packaged it up? Or should just focus on stuff in the wishlist and
try to clear up some of the backlog?
The reason I asked was because someone on IRC gave this link to a font
that doesn't appear on our wishlist, and appears to be brand-new:
http://haikumonkey.net/?page_id=106
Maybe it can be added to the wishlist?
Stephen
15 years, 2 months
Re: policy on shipping/using flags
by Roozbeh Pournader
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Roozbeh Pournader <roozbeh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> * Presently, the Unicode consortium is considering a proposal to
> encode various symbols (called emoji) used in Japanese cellphones in
> the Unicode Standard. This very large set includes flags of a few
> countries, like the flag of the People's Republic of China:
>
> http://www.unicode.org/~scherer/emoji4unicode/snapshot/utc.html#e-4E5
> [warning: hundreds of small icons on the page]
>
> From what I can tell, the proposal has a very high chance of
> acceptance, and those flags will become Unicode characters. When fonts
> we ship start to include glyphs for such flags, what do we do? Do we
> remove them from the fonts when shipping them?
I am just back from the Unicode Technical Committee meeting. During
the emoji discussions, as a GNOME's representatives to Unicode, I
mentioned some of the controversial issues that will raise if Unicode
encodes flags.
The committee agreed to not encode those characters as flags, but only
as place-holder characters for compatibility with Japanese telephone
company standards.
The characters are now only called Emoji Symbol GB, Emoji Symbol CN,
Emoji Symbol RU, etc, and their glyphs are just the two letters in a
dashed box, like this:
http://unicode.org/~scherer/emoji4unicode/fontimg/AEmoji_E4ED.png
So, no worries on this part of the flags issue anymore.
Roozbeh
15 years, 2 months
Re: BPG Georgian Unicode fonts - packagers wanted
by George Machitidze
FYI
wasn't subscribed to all needed lists...
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:02 AM, George Machitidze <giomac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Nicolas!
> Thank you for initiating this issue - I didn't expect to see this message
> here :)
> I will talk with him directly and package files - I'm very experienced with
> rpmbuild and spec-s.
> Actually, I planned to release it, but I was little busy...
> btw, one of our friends just few hours ago finished first georgian psfu
> console font too, now we are testing it...
> 2009/2/4 Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net>
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Yesterday I took the time to find the current address of a well-known
>> Georgian font creator, Besarion Paata Gugushvili. Our current Georgian
>> support is rather limited: one set of glyphs in Dejavu, and nothing else
>> (This set was created by the very same author BTW). Imagine using the
>> same font all day long everywhere :(
>>
>> Some of his other fonts had long found their way in other major
>> distributions (Mandriva, OpenSuse, Debian, Ubuntu…), at a time Fedora
>> was largely ignoring this problem-space, but there was no public
>> licensing statement of his part on any of his web sites. Which meant we
>> could not just lift the files from the internet, and package them to
>> reach Georgian support parity with others.
>>
>> So took the time to write the author a long nice mail asking to confirm
>> the licensing. I didn't expect much, this kind of request usually takes
>> ages to be answered, and the answer is usually not the one we'd like
>> (when we don't hit language barriers).
>>
>> Anyway this time the reply was awesome:
>> 1. less than 9 hours later (most of them night I'm sure)
>> 2. a *new* font pack release (not the old files everyone else ships)
>> 3. with *new* fonts (not just updates of the fonts everyone else ships)
>> 4. with a clear licensing statement on the author web site (not a
>> third-party site like before)
>> 5. and adding the FSF font exception to the GPL statement (people who
>> tried know how hard it is to get this one usually, many font authors
>> just don't understand the need)
>>
>> So, Fedora would seriously suck if we took ages to package those fonts
>> now. Or if other distros beat us to it. Unfortunately, I'm a *tad* busy
>> right now, and can't possibly work on it short term.
>>
>> Therefore, I'm doing a public call on Fedora lists, for someone to
>> package those, and prove Besarion Paata Gugushvili was right to trust
>> Fedora.
>>
>> All the relevant technical information is here:
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BPG_fonts
>>
>> Let's rock!
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> --
>> Nicolas Mailhot
>>
>> --
>> Fedora-i18n-list mailing list
>> Fedora-i18n-list(a)redhat.com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-i18n-list
>>
>
>
>
> --
> BR,
> George Machitidze
>
>
--
BR,
George Machitidze
15 years, 2 months
[Fonts-list] Help with multi spec
by Ankur Sinha
hi,
I have some queries with the font multi spec.
I have referred the specs in rawhide for mgopen, dejavu and vera fonts
and have based my spec on them.
I get this error on attempting to build the package::
"error: line 51: Package does not exist: %post sfd-general-fonts"
>From what i understood from the rawhide specs, the
Why am i getting this? Ive based the %_font_pkg line as per the other
specs. Where can i find documentation on these new macros?
Also, do i need to make different conf files for these three families?
They do not differ in generic name. (I have currently excluded
mentioning of the conf files).
regards,
Ankur
15 years, 2 months
New font package, needs a review/sponsor
by Stephen Carter
Greetings,
As I mentioned earlier, I'm a new packager. I just submitted my first
package review request, which can be found here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484057
The font is called Epigrafica, and hopefully it is the first of many
such font packages. :D
I need people to review/sponser the package, so if someone could take a
look, that would be great. Also, this is for a school project as well,
and I'm kinda behind schedule, so the faster we can get the review
process moving along, the better.
Comments and criticism are most welcome!
Stephen Carter
15 years, 2 months
BPG Georgian Unicode fonts - packagers wanted
by Nicolas Mailhot
Dear all,
Yesterday I took the time to find the current address of a well-known
Georgian font creator, Besarion Paata Gugushvili. Our current Georgian
support is rather limited: one set of glyphs in Dejavu, and nothing else
(This set was created by the very same author BTW). Imagine using the
same font all day long everywhere :(
Some of his other fonts had long found their way in other major
distributions (Mandriva, OpenSuse, Debian, Ubuntu…), at a time Fedora
was largely ignoring this problem-space, but there was no public
licensing statement of his part on any of his web sites. Which meant we
could not just lift the files from the internet, and package them to
reach Georgian support parity with others.
So took the time to write the author a long nice mail asking to confirm
the licensing. I didn't expect much, this kind of request usually takes
ages to be answered, and the answer is usually not the one we'd like
(when we don't hit language barriers).
Anyway this time the reply was awesome:
1. less than 9 hours later (most of them night I'm sure)
2. a *new* font pack release (not the old files everyone else ships)
3. with *new* fonts (not just updates of the fonts everyone else ships)
4. with a clear licensing statement on the author web site (not a
third-party site like before)
5. and adding the FSF font exception to the GPL statement (people who
tried know how hard it is to get this one usually, many font authors
just don't understand the need)
So, Fedora would seriously suck if we took ages to package those fonts
now. Or if other distros beat us to it. Unfortunately, I'm a *tad* busy
right now, and can't possibly work on it short term.
Therefore, I'm doing a public call on Fedora lists, for someone to
package those, and prove Besarion Paata Gugushvili was right to trust
Fedora.
All the relevant technical information is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BPG_fonts
Let's rock!
Best regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
15 years, 2 months
