On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 07:46:55PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Why the severity? > > Visual changes does not seem reason release-critical to me. > > "completely broken" need more than a vague suspicion, IMHO.
Feel free to downgrade. The background for the severity: I installed the package to get a specific font, and that font suddenly disappeared and was replaced by a completely different font. For me, that's completely broken. If it's by intention, well... perhaps I'll need to pin the old one indefinitely, then. > Google dropped Noto Mono a few years ago. We kept it alive, until > recently when Google re-introduced Noto Mono. Huh, OK. But why is the web font different from the .ttf, then? It doesn't make a lot of sense. If I download the .ttf from https://www.google.com/get/noto/, it looks like the one in stable. And https://github.com/googlefonts/noto-fonts doesn't list any “Noto Mono” at all except “Noto Sans Mono”. Where's this new font coming from? > This shows which actual fonts are most likely used: > > fc-match -s 'Noto Mono' | head -n 5 Looks fine for me: kos:~> fc-match -s 'Noto Mono' | head -n 5 NotoMono-Regular.ttf: "Noto Mono" "Regular" Vera.ttf: "Bitstream Vera Sans" "Roman" DejaVuSans.ttf: "DejaVu Sans" "Book" DejaVuSans-Bold.ttf: "DejaVu Sans" "Bold" DejaVuSans-Oblique.ttf: "DejaVu Sans" "Oblique" > > > Thanks for reporting this, > > - Jonas > -- Homepage: https://www.sesse.net/