Re: [Fontconfig] TTF/OTF packaging thoughts?
Le Mer 23 juillet 2008 21:45, James Cloos a écrit : > >> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> writes: > > Nicolas> Can you patch fontconfig so apps get OTF (OpenType CFF) > Nicolas> versions by default, unless they explicitely request OpenType > Nicolas> TTF files? (when the same version of the same font is > available Nicolas> in both formats) > > You may be able to do that in fonts.conf. > test name="fontformat" for the strings >TrueType<, >CFF< or >Type 1<. But is it possible to write a blanket rule for all fonts? > Or, you might want to patch apps like OO.o, AbiWord, et al to ignore > CFF; there is a C-level api for that, too. In fact, until they > actually support CFF, they should do that upstream Ok, I guess that means we need to open app-specific bugs now. -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: Proposal: reference locl feature file
Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 01:43, Vasile Gaburici a écrit : > > It's surprisingly hard to find good information on how the locl > OpenType feature should be handled for various languages. I propose we > add a well commented reference fea file somewhere on the Fedora wiki. Well, it's a wiki. Just to it (preferably using a native floss format, but I guess anything fontforge understands is ok) -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: Suffix for "Old Standard" ?
Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 01:11, Dave Crossland a écrit : > > 2008/7/23 Martin-Gomez Pablo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> So we need to add a suffix to the name but I'm not imaginative for >> finding a good suffix (maybe "iced" as Nicolas propose), anyone of >> you have an lightning idea ? > > Why not use a build of FF from the same time the source files were > published? 1. Other fonts in the distro depend on a recent fontforge release. If we start requiring one fontforge version per font we're dead. 2. While the author objects most to the current fontforge version, I'm almost sure he'd want us to change the font name even if we used the exact same version as his. As the author says, we have to stand up for our own choices. Fedora builds its content from sources. With fonts and pretty much anything else that means aligning on a few build tool versions which are almost certain not to be the same upstreams tested, and if this change introduces problems, we have to track and get them fixed. (but at least we know we can re-generate and patch our version at will, unlike organisations that copy a pre-built version and have no idea how to fix it in case of problems) The author's feeling is not uncommon software-side too, you know. I think we'll try to bump the fontforge version in fedora-devel to the latest available upstream just before F10 beta. And then rebuild every font depending on it. This way Fedora 10 users will have a recent fontforge in-distro and we'll be sure all our fonts work with it. That's what we did in previous releases. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts?
All, After the discussion on two public lists, and some public and private exchanges on IRC with people whose opinion I respect a lot, since no one proposed a problem-free way to do dual format packaging, and many objected to all this complexity just to work around OpenOffice.org bugs, I propose the following simplified policy. 1. If upstream works with one preferred OpenType format (TTF or OTF), use this format. 2. If a font is available in both TTF (OpenType TT) and OTF (OpenType CCF) formats, package the most recent and complete version. 3. If both formats are generated from the same source upstream, package the OTF (OpenType CCF) version. The reason is most font editors work with cubic splines natively, and we don't ignore CFF hinting the way we do TT hinting (different legal context), so the OTF version may be slightly better in our context. 4. For already packaged fonts, continue to package the TTF (OpenType TT) format till OO.o is fixed. The reason is to avoid upsetting users that already created documents using the TTF version, that won't work anymore if we switch to OTF under their feet. After OO.o is fixed apply the same policy as for new packages. 5. As an exception, a maintainer is allowed to use his best judgement and package both versions in a single rpm, if a user manages to convince him it's not a terribly bad idea. (but never do it by default). Bear in mind that in addition to the previously mentioned problems that will double the package size so livecd and bandwidth-constrained users won't be happy about it. But at least the packaging will be simple. 6. Since it seems several projects use different font names for the OTF and TTF variants, systematically package a fontconfig ruleset that maps the font name we do not package to the one we do. Is everyone happy with this? If you have a convincing argument to do something else please speak up now. Otherwise I'll add these rules to the wiki before the end of the week (and the start of my vacations), and probably send them FPC/FESCO side so they can be officialized. Also I propose: 7. Do not package new Type1 fonts. If someone cares about a Type1 font, he should get it converted to OpenType CFF before we consider packaging it. (though it seems Type1 is moribund enough no one has proposed new Type1 fonts in ages) Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Fwd: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts?
-- Forwarded message -- From: Vasile Gaburici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:51 AM Subject: Re: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts? To: Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I agree with all your points. Regarding point 7, I'm going to emphasize, as you did previously, that conversion from Type 1 to OpenType/CFF is a non-trivial job, as the recent thread on the OpenType versions of the URW fonts has shown. So, until someone finds the significant time required to do a proper conversion, we should try to make the type-1 fonts that Fedora does ship as usable as possible *in Fedora*. Currently I can use the URW Type 1 fonts that Fedora ships for [Unicode 3.0+ encoded] Romanian *in Windows*, but not in Fedora. I'm still investigating the best way to emulate Uniscribe's solution. The issue that URW's fonts have is shared by most commercial Type 1 fonts as well. Even if Fedora doesn't ship any of those, it would not hurt to have them work in Fedora since they require the same hack that URW fonts do. On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All, > > After the discussion on two public lists, and some public and private > exchanges on IRC with people whose opinion I respect a lot, since no > one proposed a problem-free way to do dual format packaging, and many > objected to all this complexity just to work around OpenOffice.org > bugs, I propose the following simplified policy. > > 1. If upstream works with one preferred OpenType format (TTF or OTF), > use this format. > > 2. If a font is available in both TTF (OpenType TT) and OTF (OpenType > CCF) formats, package the most recent and complete version. > > 3. If both formats are generated from the same source upstream, > package the OTF (OpenType CCF) version. The reason is most font > editors work with cubic splines natively, and we don't ignore CFF > hinting the way we do TT hinting (different legal context), so the OTF > version may be slightly better in our context. > > 4. For already packaged fonts, continue to package the TTF (OpenType > TT) format till OO.o is fixed. The reason is to avoid upsetting users > that already created documents using the TTF version, that won't work > anymore if we switch to OTF under their feet. After OO.o is fixed > apply the same policy as for new packages. > > 5. As an exception, a maintainer is allowed to use his best judgement > and package both versions in a single rpm, if a user manages to > convince him it's not a terribly bad idea. (but never do it by > default). Bear in mind that in addition to the previously mentioned > problems that will double the package size so livecd and > bandwidth-constrained users won't be happy about it. But at least the > packaging will be simple. > > 6. Since it seems several projects use different font names for the > OTF and TTF variants, systematically package a fontconfig ruleset that > maps the font name we do not package to the one we do. > > Is everyone happy with this? If you have a convincing argument to do > something else please speak up now. Otherwise I'll add these rules to > the wiki before the end of the week (and the start of my vacations), > and probably send them FPC/FESCO side so they can be officialized. > > Also I propose: > > 7. Do not package new Type1 fonts. If someone cares about a Type1 > font, he should get it converted to OpenType CFF before we consider > packaging it. (though it seems Type1 is moribund enough no one has > proposed new Type1 fonts in ages) > > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > > ___ > Fedora-fonts-list mailing list > Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list > > ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Are we really going to require fonts to be built from sources by Fedora packagers? [Was: Re: Suffix for "Old Standard" ?]
Here are some troublesome points: - Free font authors may well use non-free tools like FontLab to write them. E.g., the recent variants of Liberation Sans by Gustavo Ferreira. - Free fonts may have a source that requires free-beer tools to produce, like Adobe FDK, e.g. the TeX Gyre fonts: http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/ - Free fonts may require FOSS tools that Fedora does currently ship, e.g. metatype-1 for Latin Modern: http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/latin-modern. BTW, there are some issues with the lack of OTF versions of these fonts from Fedora's TeXLive, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=455995#c24 On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 01:11, Dave Crossland a écrit : >> >> 2008/7/23 Martin-Gomez Pablo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> >>> So we need to add a suffix to the name but I'm not imaginative for >>> finding a good suffix (maybe "iced" as Nicolas propose), anyone of >>> you have an lightning idea ? >> >> Why not use a build of FF from the same time the source files were >> published? > > 1. Other fonts in the distro depend on a recent fontforge release. If > we start requiring one fontforge version per font we're dead. > > 2. While the author objects most to the current fontforge version, I'm > almost sure he'd want us to change the font name even if we used the > exact same version as his. > > As the author says, we have to stand up for our own choices. Fedora > builds its content from sources. With fonts and pretty much anything > else that means aligning on a few build tool versions which are almost > certain not to be the same upstreams tested, and if this change > introduces problems, we have to track and get them fixed. > > (but at least we know we can re-generate and patch our version at > will, unlike organisations that copy a pre-built version and have no > idea how to fix it in case of problems) > > The author's feeling is not uncommon software-side too, you know. > > I think we'll try to bump the fontforge version in fedora-devel to the > latest available upstream just before F10 beta. And then rebuild every > font depending on it. This way Fedora 10 users will have a recent > fontforge in-distro and we'll be sure all our fonts work with it. > That's what we did in previous releases. > > Regards, > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > > ___ > Fedora-fonts-list mailing list > Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list > > ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: Are we really going to require fonts to be built from sources by Fedora packagers? [Was: Re: Suffix for "Old Standard" ?]
Hi, We do not "require" fonts to be built from source. We ask packagers to build font from sources when those sources are available unless they have a very good reason not to. However once upon a time, we didn't require fonts to be modifiable. When enough modifiable fonts became available policy changed (and Luxi was chucked). So I fully expect this strong preference to be changed in a requirement in a few releases once we have built a sufficent built from source font base. Font projects have those few years to adapt while the tooling matures. If some of the fonts you want depend on FLOSS build tools not in the repo now, please package those tools. That's what I did with xgridfit when I packaged edrip. -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: Are we really going to require fonts to be built from sources by Fedora packagers? [Was: Re: Suffix for "Old Standard" ?]
2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > non-free tools like FontLab ... free-beer tools like Adobe FDK That a proprietary program is distributed at zero price is not important; that it is proprietary is what matters :-) >> I think we'll try to bump the fontforge version in fedora-devel to the >> latest available upstream just before F10 beta. And then rebuild every >> font depending on it. This way Fedora 10 users will have a recent >> fontforge in-distro and we'll be sure all our fonts work with it. >> That's what we did in previous releases. This sounds okay to me, but what about fonts with sources that aren't in SFD? Nicolas, for some strange reason I'm not getting emails from you at all. Nor did I get Gustavo's recent emails, like the 'ivory tower' ones that also don't appear in http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-fonts-list/2008-July/thread.html for some reason..? -- Regards, Dave ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: Are we really going to require fonts to be built from sources by Fedora packagers? [Was: Re: Suffix for "Old Standard" ?]
Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 11:56, Dave Crossland a écrit : > > 2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> I think we'll try to bump the fontforge version in fedora-devel to >>> the >>> latest available upstream just before F10 beta. And then rebuild >>> every >>> font depending on it. This way Fedora 10 users will have a recent >>> fontforge in-distro and we'll be sure all our fonts work with it. >>> That's what we did in previous releases. > > This sounds okay to me, but what about fonts with sources that aren't > in SFD? Right now if a font has sources in a format that can not be processed by FLOSS tools we use the prebuilt version. Long term we'll probably have to require active font projects to change their base format, or drop them for the distro (I don't see a huge problem in shipping fonts no one updates in pre-built format. That just means the first person that does a change will have to take care of this problem). > Nicolas, for some strange reason I'm not getting emails from you at > all. I happen to send mails through the French postal service smtp servers. They have several millions of users. So every once in a while a spammer gets through. For this reason, and since it's not a well-known US brand, some neolithic blacklists regularly blackhole them (of course they wouldn't even think to do the same to yahoo or gmail, even after their capcha disaster). You're probably behind a gateway that blindly trusts such a list. You can see they do make it to Red Hat's listservers. > Nor did I get Gustavo's recent emails, like the 'ivory tower' > ones that also don't appear in > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-fonts-list/2008-July/thread.html > for some reason..? Some of those posts were not CCed to public lists, and I got tired of forwarding them. I don't think anything earth-shattering was omitted. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
Le Lun 21 juillet 2008 00:15, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit : > You need to trace this version to its ultimate source, talk with > fedora-legal (or spot) and convince the current package maintainer to > switch font sources Actually trying to package this OpenType CFF version http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre is probably a better idea. The font history seems clean, but one does need to check all the FLOSS license conversions are legitimate (the Gust license makes my head spin and I don't know what the differences with the GNU version we ship now are. http://www.typophile.com/node/41012 But ajax would be delighted to have another reason to drop Xorg Type1 support -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 16:37, Vasile Gaburici a écrit : > Chances are that these are newer incarnations of the shady package I > found. I'm saying this because Adobe's Thomas Phinney said on > typophile that the shady package most likely used Adobe FDK. As you > can see from their fea file, the gyre fonts do the same... As far as I'm concerned they can use all the proprietary tools they want as long as they do not incorporate proprietary content and their published sources can be manipulated by floss tools we can package. -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
I suspect that their fonts are based on the visual designs, but not raw data of the URW fonts, otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL, and could not change the license... As you know, font "looks" cannot be copyrighted in the U.S. (not sure about Europe though). So, the main question is: can Fedora use their work? Surely, it would be interesting to know if their relicensing business is kosher, but that's secondary. On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 16:37, Tom \"spot\" Callaway a écrit : >> >> On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 16:33 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >>> I wonder what fedora-legal has to say on the subject >> >> On what subject exactly? I'm missing all of the context here. > > Is it OK if for the gust project to relicense GPL fonts under the GUST > (LPPL) license ? > > We need an OpenType conversion of the ghostscript fonts so we can > forget about Type1. Those Polish TEX guys did one that looks good, but > publish the result under another (acceptable for us) license. > > You see this concern on page 8 of > http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/afp05.pdf > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > > ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: What happened to tetex-fontools?
Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 16:34, Vasile Gaburici a écrit : > > I need those to install OpenType fonts for the traditional TeX! What > does "Orphaned Package" mean? That means the previous packager lost interest, and no one took over from him, so the package was removed from the repository -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 16:37, Tom \"spot\" Callaway a écrit : > > On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 16:33 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> I wonder what fedora-legal has to say on the subject > > On what subject exactly? I'm missing all of the context here. Is it OK if for the gust project to relicense GPL fonts under the GUST (LPPL) license ? We need an OpenType conversion of the ghostscript fonts so we can forget about Type1. Those Polish TEX guys did one that looks good, but publish the result under another (acceptable for us) license. You see this concern on page 8 of http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/afp05.pdf -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 16:25, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit : > The font history seems clean, but one does need to check all the FLOSS > license conversions are legitimate (the Gust license makes my head > spin and I don't know what the differences with the GNU version we > ship now are.) Well, there are some answers on page 8 of http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/afp05.pdf I wonder what fedora-legal has to say on the subject -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
What happened to tetex-fontools?
I need those to install OpenType fonts for the traditional TeX! What does "Orphaned Package" mean? ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 17:00, Vasile Gaburici a écrit : > I suspect that their fonts are based on the visual designs, but not > raw data of the URW fonts, It's based on the raw data. That's explained in their presentations. > otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL, > and could not change the license... I think so too, but IANAL. I'm sure an official Fedora notification will make them relicense if necessary. -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I suspect that their fonts are based on the visual designs, but not > raw data of the URW fonts, otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL, I think the GUST guys have infringed the GPL. Not 100% sure, but I think so :( ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Uniscribe support for locl
I asked this on typophile beucase I saw the question mark in the DejaVu wiki, and MS has no info on their site about it. Apparently Vista and Office 2007 support locl, but it's enabled based on the "default language system" setting. I have no clue what it means, and I have neither Vista nor Office 2007, so I cannot test it. A new API must be used to enable it for a non-default language. Source: http://typophile.com/node/47683 ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
The GPL copyright holder for the original Type 1 fonts is URW, so they would have to send GUST notice of derived work infringement. Correct? On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> I suspect that their fonts are based on the visual designs, but not >> raw data of the URW fonts, otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL, > > I think the GUST guys have infringed the GPL. Not 100% sure, but I think so :( > > ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
Well, in that case Fedora is in trouble already. The gyre OpenType fonts are already shipped by Fedora in a TeXLive package, just not used by pango! [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpm -qif /usr/share/texmf/fonts/opentype/public/tex-gyre/texgyrepagella-regular.otf Name: texlive-texmf-fonts Relocations: (not relocatable) Version : 2007 Vendor: Fedora Project Release : 22.fc9Build Date: Tue 06 May 2008 12:01:32 AM EEST Install Date: Thu 29 May 2008 08:25:36 PM EEST Build Host: ppc4.fedora.phx.redhat.com Group : Applications/Publishing Source RPM: texlive-texmf-2007-22.fc9.src.rpm Size: 112425640License: Artistic 2.0 and GPLv2 and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and LPPL and MIT and Public Domain and UCD and Utopia Signature : DSA/SHA1, Tue 06 May 2008 05:32:02 AM EEST, Key ID b44269d04f2a6fd2 Packager: Fedora Project URL : http://tug.org/texlive/ Summary : Font files needed for TeXLive Description : This package contains the components of the TEXMF tree needed for the texlive-fonts package. On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Tom spot Callaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 18:29 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote: >> The GPL copyright holder for the original Type 1 fonts is URW, so they >> would have to send GUST notice of derived work infringement. Correct? > > To initiate legal proceedings, yes, but it doesn't mean that Fedora can > distribute it. Think of it as a stolen good. > > ~spot > > ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Well, in that case Fedora is in trouble already. The gyre OpenType > fonts are already shipped by Fedora in a TeXLive package, just not > used by pango! TeXLive has been stripping out non-free fonts from other TeX distributions, so perhaps those guys know more than we do. The TeX Gyre homepage at says "It aims at remaking and extending of the freely available fonts distributed with Ghostscript." 'Remaking' means they could chose their license, 'extending' means they have use the GPL. "All of the Ghostscript text font families have become "gyrefied" as the result of the project." suggests it is 'extending' though. I'm in Cork, Ireland at TUG2008 right now, so I'll ask around about this at dinner tonight... The Ghostscript fonts are pure GPL too, without the "Font Exception" - which is very annoying. ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: Increasing point size of Meera font using fontconfig
Hi again, I tested your snippet and it works perfectly. It's actually a very nice trick that should be documented! I'm CC'ing fedora-fonts-list. Here's the snippet to adjust font size for a family. Meera matrix 1.20 01.2 behdad On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 15:13 +0530, Pravin Satpute wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi Behdad, > > ~I am maintainer of package smc-fonts-meera-04-6.fc9.noarch and i > want to double this fonts point size using fontconfig, i need your help > in this case. > Attaching .conf file i have created for meera font, > ~https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448078 > ~I don't know how to test that whether it is working right or not, > alternately it will be nice if you help me in correcting this file. > ~I will be very thankful to you for giving some time from your busy > schedule. > > > Thanks & Regards, > Pravin S > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iEYEARECAAYFAkiITqgACgkQLTnsA10u83yKdACeMo9+3CRMgp7ccnKYdfJgL2aH > 9UsAnjkRTriDlfgLf7H0rXrzSWnbyn+B > =tW3X > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > -- behdad http://behdad.org/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 17:51, Vasile Gaburici a écrit : > > Well, in that case Fedora is in trouble already. The gyre OpenType > fonts are already shipped by Fedora in a TeXLive package, just not > used by pango! Oh, great I hate people that ship fonts without making a proper separate font sub-package I can check -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: What happened to tetex-fontools?
I'd like to (re)package it and be the maintainer for these tools. Before I follow the submission procedure, could someone explain to me what an appropriate replacement prefix for 'tetex' would be? I mean, Fedora isn't shipping tetex anymore, but this useful only for TeX and depends on kpsewhich (from texlive). Should I change the name to texlive-fontools or perhaps ctan-fontools? There's a fonttools (double t) that does something else... On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Nicolas Mailhot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 16:34, Vasile Gaburici a écrit : >> >> I need those to install OpenType fonts for the traditional TeX! What >> does "Orphaned Package" mean? > > That means the previous packager lost interest, and no one took over > from him, so the package was removed from the repository > > -- > Nicolas Mailhot > > ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: What happened to tetex-fontools?
I found the answer on the wiki: I should call it tex-fontools. On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Vasile Gaburici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to (re)package it and be the maintainer for these tools. > Before I follow the submission procedure, could someone explain to me > what an appropriate replacement prefix for 'tetex' would be? I mean, > Fedora isn't shipping tetex anymore, but this useful only for TeX and > depends on kpsewhich (from texlive). Should I change the name to > texlive-fontools or perhaps ctan-fontools? There's a fonttools (double > t) that does something else... > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Nicolas Mailhot > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 16:34, Vasile Gaburici a écrit : >>> >>> I need those to install OpenType fonts for the traditional TeX! What >>> does "Orphaned Package" mean? >> >> That means the previous packager lost interest, and no one took over >> from him, so the package was removed from the repository >> >> -- >> Nicolas Mailhot >> >> > ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
[Fwd: Re: The goose OpenType eggs holds...]
-- Message original -- Objet:Re: The goose OpenType eggs holds... De: "Tom \"spot\" Callaway" Date: Jeu 24 juillet 2008 17:15 -- On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 17:08 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > It's based on the raw data. That's explained in their presentations. > > > otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL, > > and could not change the license... > > I think so too, but IANAL. I'm sure an official Fedora notification > will make them relicense if necessary. Unless they are the copyright holder (not only for the new work, but also for the original source work), they cannot relicense something from GPL to GUST. Nor should Fedora even consider including anything which is doing that. Please consider this "an official Fedora notification" that this is not appropriate. ~spot -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Fwd: [Bug 456582] Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst
Maybe somebody on this list is willing to sponsor me on this package: -- Forwarded message -- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:43 PM Subject: [Bug 456582] Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456582 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-24 15:43 EST --- Btw, this is my first package and I'm seeking a sponsor. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter. ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Had a look at Charis SIL
It uses *lots* of multiple (ligature-type) substitutions, sprinkled with some context-based substitutions, and some single substitutions in multiple ccmp tables (some tables are class-based, some glyph based). It's unlike any of the simple stuff that Adobe or other fonts do. I wonder how they maintain all that... Does anyone know if they have their own production tools? ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages
Hi, Given what happened there: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456580 I'm proposing the following guidelines amendment: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: Had a look at Charis SIL
Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 22:52, Vasile Gaburici a écrit : > > It uses *lots* of multiple (ligature-type) substitutions, sprinkled > with some context-based substitutions, and some single substitutions > in multiple ccmp tables (some tables are class-based, some glyph > based). It's unlike any of the simple stuff that Adobe or other fonts > do. I wonder how they maintain all that... Does anyone know if they > have their own production tools? You should visit SIL's site (or read the bit of our wiki that talks about foundries). Those guys are serious about i18n and they use all the tricks in the book to manage it. They even have their own smart font tech, graphite. Adobe really does not play in the same space. -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: What happened to tetex-fontools?
Le Jeu 24 juillet 2008 20:55, Vasile Gaburici a écrit : > I found the answer on the wiki: I should call it tex-fontools. Vasile: you should really CC the maintainers of other TEX-related packages to your bugzilla request, and make some noise on the fedora-devel mailing list about it if you want it reviewed quickly. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
2008/7/24 Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I suspect that their fonts are based on the visual designs, but not
>> raw data of the URW fonts, otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL,
>
> I think the GUST guys have infringed the GPL. Not 100% sure, but I think so :(
Okay, I looked into it and it seems to be true. I couldn't find Hans
Hagen tonight, but will email him if I can't meet him tomorrow...
>From http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/adventor I
downloaded
http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/adventor/qag1.104bas.zip
which has /doc/fonts/tex-gyre/README-TeX-Gyre-Adventor.txt which says:
- - - - 8< - - - -
###
The TeX Gyre Collection of Fonts
The font Adventor
###
Font: TeX Gyre Adventor
Design: Herb Lubalin and Tom Carnase
Authors: Bogus\l{}aw Jackowski and Janusz M. Nowacki
Version: 1.104
Date: 29 II 2008
Downloads: http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/adventor
License:
% Copyright (URW)++, copyright 1999 by (URW)++ Design & Development.
% Cyrillic glyphs added by Valek Filippov, copyright 2001-2002.
% Vietnamese characters were added by Han The Thanh.
% Copyright 2007 for TeX Gyre extensions by B. Jackowski and J. M. Nowacki
% (on behalf of TeX Users Groups).
% This work is released under the GUST Font License
% -- see GUST-FONT-LICENSE.txt.
% This work has the LPPL maintenance status "maintained".
% The Current Maintainer of this work is Bogus\l{}aw Jackowski
% and Janusz M. Nowacki.
% This work consists of the files listed
% % in the MANIFEST-TeX-Gyre-Adventor.txt file.
...
- - - - 8< - - - -
This line:
% Copyright (URW)++, copyright 1999 by (URW)++ Design & Development
means this project is bankrupt :-(
--
Regards,
Dave
I support www.gnuherds.org -
democratic free software jobs
___
Fedora-fonts-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: Had a look at Charis SIL
2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Does anyone know if they > have their own production tools? They do, and they depend somewhat on proprietary software (FontLab) but SIL have been slowly publishing them, I think. -- Regards, Dave ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: The goose OpenType eggs holds...
2008/7/24 Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 2008/7/24 Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> 2008/7/24 Vasile Gaburici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> I suspect that their fonts are based on the visual designs, but not >>> raw data of the URW fonts, otherwise GUST would be bound by the GPL, >> >> I think the GUST guys have infringed the GPL. Not 100% sure, but I think so >> :( > > Okay, I looked into it and it seems to be true. > http://www.gust.org.pl/projects/e-foundry/tex-gyre/adventor/qag1.104bas.zip > which has /doc/fonts/tex-gyre/README-TeX-Gyre-Adventor.txt which says: In fact its even more explicit in that file: "TeX Gyre Adventor is based on the URW Gothic L distributed under GPL with Ghostscript." and then "The TeX Gyre Adventor family can be freely used and distributed under the GUST Font License (see above) which is actually an instance of the LaTeX Project Public License" Madness! :-) ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: Increasing point size of Meera font using fontconfig
Hi Behdad, original source is from http://download.savannah.gnu.org/releases/smc/fonts/malayalam-fonts-04.1.zip just edited it for testing good to know it is working perfectly where should i submit this patch 1) to fontconfig package? or 2) will it ok to copy it to /etc/conf.d through smc-fonts package? IMO second one is not right let me know so i can do remaining things for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448078 Thanks, Pravin S 2008/7/24 Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Hi again, > > I tested your snippet and it works perfectly. It's actually a very nice > trick that should be documented! I'm CC'ing fedora-fonts-list. Here's > the snippet to adjust font size for a family. > > > > > > > >Meera > > > >matrix >1.20 >01.2 > > > > > > > > behdad > > > On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 15:13 +0530, Pravin Satpute wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Hi Behdad, >> >> ~I am maintainer of package smc-fonts-meera-04-6.fc9.noarch and i >> want to double this fonts point size using fontconfig, i need your help >> in this case. >> Attaching .conf file i have created for meera font, >> ~https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448078 >> ~I don't know how to test that whether it is working right or not, >> alternately it will be nice if you help me in correcting this file. >> ~I will be very thankful to you for giving some time from your busy >> schedule. >> >> >> Thanks & Regards, >> Pravin S >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org >> >> iEYEARECAAYFAkiITqgACgkQLTnsA10u83yKdACeMo9+3CRMgp7ccnKYdfJgL2aH >> 9UsAnjkRTriDlfgLf7H0rXrzSWnbyn+B >> =tW3X >> -END PGP SIGNATURE- >> > -- > behdad > http://behdad.org/ > > ___ > Fedora-fonts-list mailing list > Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list > > ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
