On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 23:13 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Dear packager,
At 20091029T192211Z, while scanning the rawhide repository located at: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/static-repos/dist-rawhide-current/x86_64/ I have identified the following problems in your oldstandard-sfd-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 17 oldstandard-sfd-fonts oldstandard-sfd-fonts 3 Total 3
Fonts with partial script coverage
☛ Some font files included in the package are missing only a few glyphs to be accepted by fontconfig as covering one or several scripts. Therefore they could be made useful to more people with only a little effort.
To check a font file script coverage, run fc-query with FC_DEBUG=256 and look for lines like: script-id¹(number) { list-of-unicode-codepoints }
For example “mi(2) { 1e34 1e35 }” means fontconfig will accept the tested file for Maori if codepoints 1e34 and 1e35 are added.
If you feel fontconfig is requiring a glyph which is not strictly necessary for a particular script, report the problem upstream².
¹ http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php ² https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=fontconfig
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the oldstandard-sfd-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
hi,
I got this email, one each for *every* font package that I maintain. I don't exactly understand what I'm supposed to do to fix the package. Can someone please outline the procedure?
I ran fc-query on one of the files:
[Package@Ankur gargi-1.9]$ fc-query gargi.ttf Pattern has 20 elts (size 32) family: "gargi"(s) familylang: "en"(s) style: "Medium"(s) stylelang: "en"(s) fullname: "gargi"(s) fullnamelang: "en"(s) slant: 0(i)(s) weight: 100(i)(s) width: 100(i)(s) foundry: "unknown"(s) file: "gargi.ttf"(s) index: 0(i)(s) outline: FcTrue(s) scalable: FcTrue(s) charset: 0000: 00000000 ffffffff ffffffff 7fffffff 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 0009: fffffffe fbffffff ff3fbfff 007fffff 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 0020: 77193000 00010043 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 0022: 00040000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 00e9: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000700 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 (s) lang: bh|bho|fj|hi|hne|ho|ia|ie|io|kj|kok|kwm|mai|mr|ms|ne|ng|nr|om|rn| rw|sa|sn|so|ss|st|sw|ts|uz|xh|za|zu(s) fontversion: 124518(i)(s) capability: "otlayout:DFLT otlayout:deva"(s) fontformat: "TrueType"(s) decorative: FcFalse(s)
Is this what's supposed to be done? If "yes", what now? If "no", please correct me :)
Le Sam 31 octobre 2009 09:03, Ankur Sinha a écrit :
Hi Ankur,
On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 23:13 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Fonts with partial script coverage
☛ Some font files included in the package are missing only a few glyphs
to be accepted by fontconfig as covering one or several scripts. Therefore they could be made useful to more people with only a little effort.
To check a font file script coverage, run fc-query with FC_DEBUG=256 and look for lines like: script-id¹(number) { list-of-unicode-codepoints }I got this email, one each for *every* font package that I maintain.
If your packages only fail test 17 they're in pretty good shape.
I don't exactly understand what I'm supposed to do to fix the package. Can someone please outline the procedure?
I ran fc-query on one of the files:
You need to run it with debug set to 256 to see the coverage warnings (FC_DEBUG=256 fc-query my-file). You also have a pre-computed fc-query output in the tar.xz attached to the message.
Almost no one knows this so very few font authors have checked their coverage according to fontconfig so far and many fonts could easily be fixed to cover more scripts. When you see that according to fc-query one of the packaged fonts needs X, Y and Z to fully cover A script, you can relay the info to the font author so he completes his font. Of course fontconfig is not perfect so if you see it wants X for A, but that makes no sense to you, you can open a bug fontconfig-side to have its rules for A changed.
fc-query only warns when it needs less than 10 glyphs to complete a script; considering the typical font includes hundreds of those that's a very small effort for the font author.
Lastly if you have artistic skills you can always draw the missing glyphs and propose them as patches upstream. But I doubt many of out packagers will chose this option.
Well, that just shows repo-font-audit messaging could be improved. Text suggestions are welcome :p
Regards,
Running FC_DEBUG=256 against ns-tiza gives me a list of about 50 scripts. Is a list that size normal?
Le Sam 31 octobre 2009 10:57, TK009 a écrit :
Running FC_DEBUG=256 against ns-tiza gives me a list of about 50 scripts. Is a list that size normal?
Many latin scripts use ASCII + one or two additional glyphs. If tiza's author drawed basic latin (=ascii) only, I wouldn't be surprised the list was very long.
It means that Tiza could almost be used, but not quite, by a lot of people. This is a shame. Please relay it to the font author
Le Sam 31 octobre 2009 11:15, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
Le Sam 31 octobre 2009 10:57, TK009 a écrit :
Running FC_DEBUG=256 against ns-tiza gives me a list of about 50 scripts. Is a list that size normal?
Many latin scripts use ASCII + one or two additional glyphs. If tiza's author drawed basic latin (=ascii) only, I wouldn't be surprised the list was very long.
It means that Tiza could almost be used, but not quite, by a lot of people. This is a shame. Please relay it to the font author
Of course please only relay elements of the form
foo(2) { 1e34 1e35 }
foo(0) means the coverage for foo is complete foo(big number) means the coverage is incomplete, but you should not bother upstream with something that needs a large effort (big number glyphs) on their part.
most need only one or two to complete. 7 of them could be fixed with just two glyph's, I am sure there are more like that in the list.As I have no artistic skill what so ever, I'll let the creator know.
-
Ankur Sinha -
Nicolas Mailhot -
TK009