I didn’t see this particular issue before, so I presume this is caused
by the new font with different dimensions: the checkboxes in the update
dialog are cut off and cannot be scrolled to become fully visible.
** Attachment added: "Bildschirmfoto vom 2023-03-22 21-24-08.png"
https://bugs.launc
The Cyrillic letter Ge[1] has a funny shape, like the bottom half is
serif
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ge_(Cyrillic)
** Attachment added: "Bildschirmfoto vom 2023-03-22 21-20-57.png"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fonts-ubuntu/+bug/2011994/+attachment/5656651/+files/Bildschi
Well, if Canonical had agreed on fonts-ubuntu being non-free, it would
have been sorted in the restricted pocket of the Ubuntu archive. But
it's not. It's in main, i.e. the Canonical supported free software.
I can agree that 100% clarity would have been better, but we are not
there. The change mad
What I noticed right away is that the new version is thinner and less readable
for me. (3840x2160) Changing Hinting has no effect.
All in all the font size is good, especially the mono font now fits
proportionally better in the terminal.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a m
I have the impression the different weight is caused by different
(wrong?) hinting in the -proposed package. See for example the image in
this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Font_hinting
The apparent weight of the hinted/non-hinted versions is quite
different.
--
You received this bug
I agree regarding the new `i`. I also see a similar issue with the
middle of the number `8`.
I just tried it back and forth a few times, and I honestly prefer darker
weight of the older version as feeling more readable. But this is
admittedly subjective and the new version looks a little less unus
Well, it seems to me that we have a discrepancy here: either (for
Canonical/on Ubuntu) the UFL is non-free or it isn't. If it is, then the
other two issues are correctly open, but the fix in here (no longer
marking this font as non-free) is wrong. On the other hand, if the UFL
isn't non-free, this
That's my interpretation of the discussions you linked to and other
discussions on a related Debian bug. Maybe the word "disagrees" was not
used anywhere. What's your reason for bringing it up?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
Documentation Packages, which is subs
In https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fonts-
ubuntu/+bug/1754804/comments/4 it is stated that "Canonical disagrees"
that the license is non-free (even if I don't see a source for the
claim). The comment might have some weight, as that package on Ubuntu is
no longer marked as non-free.
Clari
> fonts-ubuntu is shipped by default on Ubuntu systems. It has
significant reverse dependencies and cannot be uninstalled easily.
Debian considers fonts-ubuntu to be “non-free” while Canonical
disagrees.
I'm sorry, can you please link to where is written that "Canonical
disagrees"? This is the fir
10 matches
Mail list logo
