fonts

fonts@lists.fedoraproject.org

821 discussions

Hey there, I'm new here!
by Elliott Tallis 10 May '22

10 May '22

Hey there, Just wanted to drop this introduction here like it says on the wiki. Just your average UK lurker wanting to poke around at Fedora's internals a bit. I'd also love it if someone could point me in the right direction on how/where/if to suggest packaging for Unicode's Last Resort font, which can be found here: https://github.com/unicode-org/last-resort-font, since I don't have access to add it to the wishlist myself because I'm in no groups, and I'm a bit numbskulled sometimes. Thanks, Elliott Tallis aka pointy

2 1

Font Review Request
by Hedayat Vatankhah 04 May '22

04 May '22

1 0

Sad state of default Persian font in Fedora
by Hedayat Vatankhah 03 May '22

03 May '22

Hi again! Once upon a time, DejaVu font was used for all Persian text rendering in Fedora. While some people considered it to be somewhat ugly, it was consistent. But, it changed a few releases ago where "Droid Kufi" (from google-droid-sans-fonts) started to be used in some places, e.g. in Telegram desktop (from rpmfusion) or IIRC in some other apps like Thunderbird. "Droid Kufi" is not suitable for Persian, it can be considered a fantasy font in Persian not something to be used in normal Sans text. Then, in Fedora 36, with the introduction of Noto fonts by default, things become worse: now, we have still DejaVu fonts being used by default in Gnome, Droid Kufi still is being used but in less places (when Droid Sans or Open Sans are needed), and Noto Sans Arabic is also being used in some places (e.g. Thunderbird & Firefox default font for title bars and menus and....). To make things even worse, from what I see in [1] and [2], it is expected that "PakType Naskh Basic" be used as the default Persian font; which fortunately isn't the case. PakType fonts are absolutely not suitable for Persian normal text, at least for fa_IR locale. Noto Sans Arabic can be an acceptable font for Persian, specially if this bug [3] is fixed. It can be also considered a good font to be used where "Droid Sans" is needed for Persian text; as it seems that Noto fonts are similar to Droid ones. Noto Naskh Arabic could be also a good candidate, and it is very similar or exactly the same as the font used by Android for Persian; but it has two issues: 1. It is considered a Serif font, so I wonder if it is acceptable to be used also where a Sans font is needed 2. It appears somewhat smaller than other fonts, which is somewhat annoying. I wonder why, but comparing to fonts like Noto Sans, Droid Sans and even Droid Naskh, it is smaller. If it was almost as big as the other options, it'd be probably a good candidate to be used by default too. How this consistency issue can be fixed? I'm trying to package Vazirmatn (formerly Vazir) font for Fedora, which seems to be a good candidate to be used by default in Fedora. But, I don't know how to solve the consistency problem. I am able to make it to be used by default by Gnome, and also be used where Open Sans is needed (currently for Telegram Desktop mainly); but I cannot make it to work by default by Firefox/Thunderbird. They are weird, while they show "Default (Vazirmatn)" (or "sans-serif") option; when you select it, it falls back to "Noto Sans Arabic" font, but if I select "Vazirmatn" explicitly, it uses it. I wonder if I should fill a bug against Firefox/Thunderbird. Now: 1. How can we select a font to be used consistently everywhere for Persian? 2. Which option should be "the one"? DejaVu Sans, Noto Sans Arabic (with that annoying bug fixed), Noto Naskh (scaled up), or to be added "Vazirmatn" font? I'm leaned towards Vazirmatn for now considering the current state of all these fonts; but I wonder if one of Noto ones are preferred for distro consistency, but changes are needed for them. [1] https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/fonts/noto/f36-noto.html [2] https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/fonts/status/36.html [3] https://github.com/googlefonts/noto-fonts/issues/2251 [4] https://github.com/rastikerdar/vazirmatn

1 0

Few questions about font packaging: variable fonts & font coverage
by Hedayat Vatankhah 28 Apr '22

28 Apr '22

1 0

Self Introduction: Benson Muite
by Benson Muite 16 Apr '22

16 Apr '22

Hi, Have been using Fedora for several years. Would like to help out with some of the fonts. Filed a request to review packaging of Bungee : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075949 This is a font that is recommended for use for Fedora Magazine images: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-magazine/creating-an-image/#_fo… but seems not to be packaged. Looking forward to fruitful interactions. Thanks, Benson Muite

1 0

How to create fonts metapackage
by Anirban Mitra 27 Feb '22

27 Feb '22

I have some font packages like foo-abc-fonts, foo-def-fonts, foo-xyz-fonts. Now I want to create a meta-package foo-fonts-all. Can someone point me to some documentation how to do so? Thanks Anirban

3 3

Inclusion of Ol Chiki font Uniol in Fedora
by Anirban Mitra 18 Feb '22

18 Feb '22

This is for your information I have uploaded my Ol Chiki font Uniol in Fedora Repository and created a wiki page for that. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Uniol_fonts Thanks -- Anirban Mitra

1 0

Olchiki unicode font new review request
by Anirban Mitra 03 Feb '22

03 Feb '22

I have opened a new package review request for my ol chiki font Uniol. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2050295 This is for information of members as suggested in font packaging page.

1 0

What is the successor of fedora-fonts-bugs-list AT redhat DOT com
by Anirban Mitra 01 Feb '22

01 Feb '22

I have recently filed a review request for my font Mukti which as in Fedora Wishlist for a long time https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mukti_narrow_fonts In the wiki page it was mentioned to add fedora-fonts-bugs-list AT redhat DOT com as a cc in review request. However bugzilla.redhat.com does not accept that mail address as cc. Which mail address should I add instead of that so that proper persons get notified? -- Dr Anirban Mitra

1 0

Re: How to include updated version of my fonts in Fedora
by Anirban Mitra 31 Jan '22

31 Jan '22

If I want to package and submit my font for consideration for inclusion by Fedora, can I do it? -Anir On Mon, 17 Jan 2022, 10:58 pm Tom Callaway, <spotrh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Normally, this would be as simple as updating the font packages to use the > newer versions of the fonts, but I cannot see any font packages in Fedora > which include these fonts (Ani, Mitramono, MuktiNarrow). > > If these fonts are not packaged in Fedora (or if they were but have been > retired), new packages will need to be made and reviewed first. Note: I am > not volunteering for this task, because I have more than enough on my plate > at the moment without picking up three new font packages. > > ~spot > > On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 10:22 PM Anirban Mitra <mitradranirban(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I am the developer of Open source OpenType fonts Ani, Mitramono, and >> MuktiNarrow. My fonts are part of Fedora/Redhat distribution since 2003. >> Since then I have upgraded my fonts and bugfixed them. However newer >> versions were not included in Fedora. The fonts are currently hosted in >> https://github.com/mitradranirban/fonts-fbf-beng and >> https://github.com/mitradranirban/fonts-mukti. How can the newer and >> better versions be a part of Fedora distribution? >> _______________________________________________ >> fonts mailing list -- fonts(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to fonts-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org >> Fedora Code of Conduct: >> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ >> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines >> List Archives: >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/fonts@lists.fedoraproject.org >> Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: >> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure >> >

2 4

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

fonts