Bug#835273: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#835273: Bug#835273: Bug#835273: Bug#835273: fonts-liberation: Liberation 2 fonts poorly hinted

[Fabian Greffrath]

Am Freitag, den 26.08.2016, 12:17 + schrieb Holger Levsen:
> seems good to me too.

I will re-upload 1.07.x soon.

Also, I have an idea for fonts-liberation 2.x: I'd like to package them
in a separate source package and make the binary package co-installable 
with fonts-liberation 1.07.x by installing the actual TTF files into a
different directory (e.g. /u/s/fonts/liberation2). Since the fonts
share the same names, fontconfig will always prefer the 2.x variants
because of their higher version numbers. This way, it is possible to
override fonts-liberation for most packages using fontforge (and not
explicitely accessing the fonts by full path) while still keeping the
Sans Narrow variant available. I would document this in README.Debian.

What do you think?

 - Fabian


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Bug#835273: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#835273: Bug#835273: Bug#835273: fonts-liberation: Liberation 2 fonts poorly hinted

[Vladimir K]

 On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 02:02:32PM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
>  Does anyone have objections against "temoprarily" re-uploading
>  fonts-liberation 1.07 until the hinting issues have been addressed
>  upstream (and the font is deemed "good enough" for Fedora)?

There is nothing more permanent than "temporary". 
IMHO, that would be the best decision in current circumstances. Liberation v1 
has high quality hinting. Autohint fails miserably on hairline glyph rendering. 
Perhaps it would not matter any more when ultra hi-res displays become a 
majority and no glyph would need to be rendered 1 pixel thick. But not today.

Bug#835273: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#835273: Bug#835273: Bug#835273: fonts-liberation: Liberation 2 fonts poorly hinted

[Holger Levsen]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 02:02:32PM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Does anyone have objections against "temoprarily" re-uploading
> fonts-liberation 1.07 until the hinting issues have been addressed
> upstream (and the font is deemed "good enough" for Fedora)?

seems good to me too.


-- 
cheers,
Holger


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#835273: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#835273: Bug#835273: Bug#835273: fonts-liberation: Liberation 2 fonts poorly hinted

[Fabian Greffrath]

Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> Fabian, re-uploading with epoch 1 seems like a good solution
> (1:1.07.4-2). Adding an epoch is exactly how Fedora implemented the
> switch back to Liberation 1:
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=721797

Does anyone have objections against "temoprarily" re-uploading
fonts-liberation 1.07 until the hinting issues have been addressed
upstream (and the font is deemed "good enough" for Fedora)?

 - Fabian

Bug#835273: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#835273: Bug#835273: fonts-liberation: Liberation 2 fonts poorly hinted

[Fabian Greffrath]

[Resending to the bug's address.]

Hi all!

Am Donnerstag, den 25.08.2016, 01:11 +1200 schrieb Ben Caradoc-Davies:
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Fedora 25 is still scheduled to use Liberation 1.

I didn't even know (or maybe simply forgot) that Fedora reverted back
to using Liberation 1.x for quality concerns. If this is still the
case, as you state it, we should maybe follow suit and simply re-
upload 
the previous package as 1:1.07.4-2 (i.e. with an epoch).

> 
> I think this was a sensible decision as the new SIL licence and
> extra 
> glyphs do not in my view compensate for the loss of decent hinting. 
> Liberation 1 was a magnificent achievement and is still a good
> choice 
> today. It is by no means obsolete. I am yet to find another open
> source 
> font family that is as readable and versatile and also plays nicely
> with 
> > 
> > fontconfig.

The Google CrOS Core Fonts in the fonts-croscore package are mostly the
same as the Liberation 2.x fonts with changed names. It would be
interesting if you could provide a critical review with regard to
hinting. I myself seem to be mostly blind to such subtle details. :/

> 
> Perhaps a fonts-liberation1 and fonts-liberation2 that "Breaks:"
> each 
> other and both provide the same virtual package? Ideally the virtual 
> package would be called fonts-liberation, but this is taken by the 
> current non-virtual package. I do not know the cleanest way to handle
> a 
> transition from a non-virtual to a virtual package. This might
> require 
> the advice of an apt guru.

We could still have both font versions in separate packages with
slightly different names and simple Breaks relations. No virtual
packages and Apt Voodoo required.

> 
> Splitting out the condensed (I think they call it narrow?) font might
> be 
> unnecessary complexity at this stage.

If we re-introduced fonts-liberation 1.x with a different package name,
we'd have to pass the NEW queue again, anyway. So, splitting the
condensed style into a separate package would be no problem.

Thanks for your comments!

 - Fabian

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Bug#835273: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#835273: Bug#835273: fonts-liberation: Liberation 2 fonts poorly hinted

[Ben Caradoc-Davies]

On 26/08/16 08:07, Fabian Greffrath wrote:

I didn't even know (or maybe simply forgot) that Fedora reverted back
to using Liberation 1.x for quality concerns. If this is still the
case, as you state it, we should maybe follow suit and simply re-upload
the previous package as 1:1.07.4-2 (i.e. with an epoch).


Fabian, re-uploading with epoch 1 seems like a good solution 
(1:1.07.4-2). Adding an epoch is exactly how Fedora implemented the 
switch back to Liberation 1:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=721797

I am not a font expert and have no opinion on the relative merits of 
hinting in Liberation 1 versus croscore.


Kind regards,

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies 
Director
Transient Software Limited 
New Zealand

Bug#835273: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#835273: Bug#835273: fonts-liberation: Liberation 2 fonts poorly hinted

[Fabian Greffrath]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Hi all!

Am Donnerstag, den 25.08.2016, 01:11 +1200 schrieb Ben Caradoc-Davies:
> > > Fedora 25 is still scheduled to use Liberation 1.

I didn't even know (or maybe simply forgot) that Fedora reverted back
to using Liberation 1.x for quality concerns. If this is still the
case, as you state it, we should maybe follow suit and simply re-upload 
the previous package as 1:1.07.4-2 (i.e. with an epoch).

> I think this was a sensible decision as the new SIL licence and extra 
> glyphs do not in my view compensate for the loss of decent hinting. 
> Liberation 1 was a magnificent achievement and is still a good choice 
> today. It is by no means obsolete. I am yet to find another open source 
> font family that is as readable and versatile and also plays nicely with 
> > fontconfig.

The Google CrOS Core Fonts in the fonts-croscore package are mostly the
same as the Liberation 2.x fonts with changed names. It would be
interesting if you could provide a critical review with regard to
hinting. I myself seem to be mostly blind to such subtle details. :/

> Perhaps a fonts-liberation1 and fonts-liberation2 that "Breaks:" each 
> other and both provide the same virtual package? Ideally the virtual 
> package would be called fonts-liberation, but this is taken by the 
> current non-virtual package. I do not know the cleanest way to handle a 
> transition from a non-virtual to a virtual package. This might require 
> the advice of an apt guru.

We could still have both font versions in separate packages with
slightly different names and simple Breaks relations. No virtual
packages and Apt Voodoo required.

> Splitting out the condensed (I think they call it narrow?) font might be 
> unnecessary complexity at this stage.

If we re-introduced fonts-liberation 1.x with a different package name,
we'd have to pass the NEW queue again, anyway. So, splitting the
condensed style into a separate package would be no problem.

Thanks for your comments!

 - Fabian
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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=BY70
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Bug#835273: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#835273: fonts-liberation: Liberation 2 fonts poorly hinted

[Ben Caradoc-Davies]

On 24/08/16 23:39, Fabian Greffrath wrote:

what do you suggest? Should we re-introduce fonts-liberation 1.x as
fonts-liberation1 package with "Breaks: fonts-liberation" (and maybe the
Condensed style split out into a fonts-liberation1-sans-condensed
package)?


Perhaps a fonts-liberation1 and fonts-liberation2 that "Breaks:" each 
other and both provide the same virtual package? Ideally the virtual 
package would be called fonts-liberation, but this is taken by the 
current non-virtual package. I do not know the cleanest way to handle a 
transition from a non-virtual to a virtual package. This might require 
the advice of an apt guru.


Splitting out the condensed (I think they call it narrow?) font might be 
unnecessary complexity at this stage.


Kind regards,

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies 
Director
Transient Software Limited 
New Zealand

Bug#835273: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#835273: fonts-liberation: Liberation 2 fonts poorly hinted

[Ben Caradoc-Davies]

On 24/08/16 23:48, Holger Levsen wrote:

I'm not sure what I suggest, introducing a fonts-liberation-1.7 source package
seems backward to me. Maybe just file an upstream bug?


There is an upstream bug, filed in 2012. Red Hat have had four years to 
address this problem. Their fix was to kick Liberation 2 out of Fedora 
18 and stick with Liberation 1:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856239

Fedora 25 is still scheduled to use Liberation 1.

I think this was a sensible decision as the new SIL licence and extra 
glyphs do not in my view compensate for the loss of decent hinting. 
Liberation 1 was a magnificent achievement and is still a good choice 
today. It is by no means obsolete. I am yet to find another open source 
font family that is as readable and versatile and also plays nicely with 
fontconfig.


The main problem is that Red Hat decided to reuse the Liberation name; 
if they had chosen a new name, we would not be having this problem.


Kind regards,

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies 
Director
Transient Software Limited 
New Zealand

Bug#835273: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#835273: fonts-liberation: Liberation 2 fonts poorly hinted

[Holger Levsen]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 01:39:24PM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> > Please either downgrade fonts-liberation to use 1.07-4 or split these two
> > fonts into two different packages as they are quite different.
> what do you suggest? Should we re-introduce fonts-liberation 1.x as
> fonts-liberation1 package with "Breaks: fonts-liberation" (and maybe the
> Condensed style split out into a fonts-liberation1-sans-condensed
> package)?

I'm not sure what I suggest, introducing a fonts-liberation-1.7 source package
seems backward to me. Maybe just file an upstream bug?


-- 
cheers,
Holger


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#835273: [Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#835273: fonts-liberation: Liberation 2 fonts poorly hinted

[Fabian Greffrath]

Holger,

> Please either downgrade fonts-liberation to use 1.07-4 or split these two
> fonts into two different packages as they are quite different.

what do you suggest? Should we re-introduce fonts-liberation 1.x as
fonts-liberation1 package with "Breaks: fonts-liberation" (and maybe the
Condensed style split out into a fonts-liberation1-sans-condensed
package)?

Thanks!

 - Fabian

Bug#835273: fonts-liberation: Liberation 2 fonts poorly hinted

[Vladimir K]

Agreed. After encountering new Liberation fonts on Arch, I was very happy that 
Debian did not pull this version of Liberation for several years until now. 
Hinting is really terrible.

Bug#835273: fonts-liberation: Liberation 2 fonts poorly hinted

[Ben Caradoc-Davies]

Package: fonts-liberation
Version: 2.00.1-2
Severity: normal

Dear Maintainer,

Liberation 2 fonts lack the high-quality hinting used in Liberation 1 fonts.
Please allow users to choose Liberation 1 fonts.

I have attached two tiny snapshots snippets showing a Thunar toolbar with
Liberation Sans 11pt at 96 dpi set as the desktop font. Full hinting is set in
both cases, with antialiasing and no subpixel hinting. Yes, full hinting,
although you would not believe it from looking at the Liberation 2 snapshot,
which is a blurry mess.

This problem has been known since 2012:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=856239

Even Fedora has not switched to Liberation 2, not in Fedora 24, or even in the
upcoming Fedora 25. If Red Hat will not eat their own dog food, why should
Debian?
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/liberation-fonts

Please either downgrade fonts-liberation to use 1.07-4 or split these two fonts
into two different packages as they are quite different.

Kind regards,
Ben.



-- Package-specific info:
Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
| Status=Not/Inst/Conf-files/Unpacked/halF-conf/Half-inst/trig-aWait/Trig-pend
|/ Err?=(none)/Reinst-required (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ Name   Version  Architecture Description
+++-==---=
ii  fontconfig 2.11.0-6.6   amd64generic font configuration librar
ii  libfreetype6:a 2.6.3-3+b1   amd64FreeType 2 font engine, shared li
ii  libfreetype6:i 2.6.3-3+b1   i386 FreeType 2 font engine, shared li
ii  libxft2:amd64  2.3.2-1  amd64FreeType-based font drawing libra

-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 4.6.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

-- no debconf information