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: un-core-fonts - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453016
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=43029
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 25 06:35:22 +
2008 ---
Big thanks for finally announcing a target milestone ;-)
My vote for OOo-3.1,
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: un-core-fonts - Korean TrueType fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=453016
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=92062
User nmailhot changed the following:
What|Old value |New value
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=36535
User nmailhot changed the following:
What|Old value |New value
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: gentium-basic-fonts - Gentium Basic Font Family
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456527
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What
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: sportrop-fonts - A multiline decorative font
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456345
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL
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
--- Additional
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=43029
--- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 25 14:25:48 +
2008 ---
Thanks for announcing the milestone, hdu! Thanks to all the dev's, etc. who are
To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=78749
User hdu changed the following:
What|Old value |New value
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
Not so fast. I have some details about this TeX font business, but I
won't have time to write them down until this evening.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:10 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Given what happened there:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456580
I'm
Dave Crossland wrote:
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.
Yes, the SIL designers and script engineers
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 11:07 +0200, Nicolas Spalinger wrote:
Dave Crossland wrote:
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
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 05:37 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Jeff Spaleta ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
it? I would strongly suggest working towards replacing the current
interface that both contributors and users are expected to interact
with. If I'm going to be expected
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 11:43 +0530, Pravin S wrote:
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
We have many packages that do that, because isuing a fontconfig update
each time a
2008/7/25 Nicolas Mailhot [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 11:43 +0530, Pravin S wrote:
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
We have many packages that do that,
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 00:47 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Thursday, 24 July 2008 at 23:10, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
I'm proposing the following guidelines amendment:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages
I'm generally in
It looks like MS disagreed with Adobe on how to standardize the
human-readable form of OpenType features. They have their own
XML-based language, which is used by their VOLT tool. (You can
download VOLT for free, but you have to be a member of their MSN
group.)
What's more interesting (for us) is
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 13:03 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:36:40PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Frankly, the other font formats are so much less useful than modern font
formats, the probability someone did creative legal restructuring is
much lower.
Anyway, I've
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 15:04 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote:
I did not have time finish writing all the details below, I'll write
some more tonight, but before this Type 1 bashing gets out of hand,
read the stuff below. If you don't want the gory details, the bottom
line is that the mainstream
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 14:06 +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the advantage to pack TrueType and CFF OpenType?
I guess, the shareable contents are limited as TTC-packed
CFF OpenType, so, such request comes from the people looking
for an easy archiver of font files.
Yes, I was just
On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:31 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot 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
On 10:11 Wed 16 Jul , Michal Nowak wrote:
Hi,
Fedora Linux distribution considered packaging Your Mukti fontset,
but we found out that the license is GPLv2+, which we consider as
excellent for software but not for fonts.
[…]
Michal,
I think we're all very impressed by the writing
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Nicolas Mailhot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
— We should not hide general-purpose fonts in app-specific directories.
TEX should use system fonts directly.
XeTeX can do that. TeX probably NEVER will because that violates TDS.
If you don't what that means, then don't
2008/7/25 Vasile Gaburici [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Nicolas Mailhot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
— We should not hide general-purpose fonts in app-specific directories.
TEX should use system fonts directly.
XeTeX can do that. TeX probably NEVER will because that
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/25 Vasile Gaburici [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I second the idea that TeX ought to be an exception to the guideline
not hide general-purpose fonts in app-specific directories; TeX
predates all other programs in a GNU/Linux
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 20:50 +0100, Dave Crossland wrote:
2008/7/25 Vasile Gaburici [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:18 PM, Nicolas Mailhot
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
— We should not hide general-purpose fonts in app-specific directories.
TEX should use system fonts directly.
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 23:18 +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:50 PM, Dave Crossland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2008/7/25 Vasile Gaburici [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I second the idea that TeX ought to be an exception to the guideline
not hide general-purpose fonts in
29 matches
Mail list logo
