Jens Petersen wrote:
[Re]moving all fonts from @base-x to @fonts and @legacy-fonts
Done for default and optional fonts. Probably need to talk to the X
Team first before moving the mandatory fonts from @base-x.
- proposal to switch the default font for Japanese to VLGothic-fonts
which is a
Nicolas Mailhot さんは書きました:
This is the plan, but upstream is late in merging farsi. We may make it
the default even if farsi is not merged, but that needs to be discussed.
Ok. You mean the default font for Fedora, right, not just Arabic?
IMHO we should take F9T1 as deadline to decide on this.
Nicolas Mailhot さんは書きました:
I suppose you can make changes in F9 comps now. It's not as if anyone
but hardcore rawhide users will see them before test1 (and if we
finally decide not to do it it can be undone later easily)
Ok, I have made the changes to comps-f9, so let's see how it goes:
it shoul
Since we are planning to change the default Japanese font in F9 to
VLGothic-fonts, I thought I would post the current fontconfig files here
for review and comments.
Do they look ok?
Thanks, Jens
VL Gothic
false
I see all the files in /etc/fonts/conf.avail/ on my box are owned by
fontconfig. Is it allowed for font packages to put config files there,
or is it reserved only for fontconfig?
Jens
___
Fedora-fonts-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com
h
Jeremy Katz さんは書きました:
On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 15:57 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
When looking over the LiveCD manifest, and where space is going, I
can't help but notice that a lot of it goes to fonts. Here's the
full list, AFAICT. The number to the left is the size of the package.
I think a good
owing the current defaults in @fonts will give you
nearly everything you want already. And that is my suggestion: use
@fonts for this, not the language support groups which should be
considered optional.
Jens
--
Jens Petersen
I18n Engineering, Team Lea
Bill Nottingham さんは書きました:
So, while this could be a good idea, at this stage, this is probably
best done for Fedora 10.
Right - probably safest at this stage.
I suppose one of the 'issues' here is that we want for the base livecd
to include basic support for most langs, which means both fonts
You're welcome to use this list as long as you want. It's not as if it's
high traffic and everyone on it should be interested in Liberation
progress anyway.
In fact your posting there made me wonder if we shouldn't repurpose this
list in a Lohit+Liberation+Fonts SIG one. Certainly sharing an IRC
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
I've looked at the old lohit-devel list and it's really low traffic,
with Rahul Bhalerao accounting for more than 3/4th of the messages. So
I guess it's up to Rahul to decide if moving to a common font list is
worth it for lohit.
Right
Personally I feel a list with almo
Hi Qianqian,
Sorry for the late reply. Just saw this now...
> The maintaining expense for both packages is not that much though.
> I would be glad to maintain GNU Unifont, or show Paul how to do that
> if he wants. The spec files for both packages can be almost identical.
Do you still want to d
Nicolas brought up the point recently in a font package review that we
should standardize the naming of our fonts packages to improve
consistency. The proposal is to name all source packages in the form
"*-fonts".
If we agree on this then I think the Fonts Packaging guidelines should
be upda
A new bugs mailing-list fedora-i18n-bugs has been setup to track Fedora i18n
related bugs in bugzilla. It will also be used for autocc'ing (initialcc) of
i18n related Fedora packages.
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-i18n-bugs
The list will be fairly high traffic but give people
Thanks Máirín,
> Just filed a new wishlist font:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Beteckna_fonts
Cool - it would be even better to file for a package review. :)
Jens
___
Fedora-fonts-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.c
> Actually we have 57 since Behdad requested FersiWeb fonts and no one
I should not be that hard really to generate a script to generate a skeleton
spec file for any given font .
I know some packaging people frown on automated packaging but this might help
lower the barrier to font packaging fo
> As I wrote before, I don't think we could win a lot by automating.
Well I tend to agree now: a good set of templates and rpm macros seems the
right way to go.
Jens
___
Fedora-fonts-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.co
> >> Can conf.avail and its contents be moved in /usr/share/something in the
> >> next version of fontconfig?
So to make the discussion more concrete what is the suggested new path?
/usr/share/fonts/conf.avail/ or /usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail/ or ?
Jens
__
> herewith I'm announcing the birth of two new fonts - vollkorn-fonts
> and
> yanone-tagesschrift-fonts - in the fedora universe.
Thank you
> - Comps integration: I'm going to register them only in 'fonts' as
> 'optional' (not in any xxx-support group because they only provide
> basic
> latin gly
- "AKanda" wrote:
> The last update for VLgothics "vlgothic-fonts-20090204-2.fc10.noarch"
> is perhaps not good. (Install by yum.)
> Since this update, the "japanese-fonts" of my system (all my sytem :
> nautilus, openoffice, website ...) is not beautifull.
>
> http://forums.fedora-fr.org/vi
I think the particular problem here under F10 is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485562
- "Qianqian Fang" wrote:
> I think it is quite the opposite: this happens most often when people
> are trying to read CJK text under non-CJK locales. Pango does not
> assume
> language prefere
We have been looking at updating bitmap-fonts recently,
and noticed that it is still listed mandatory in the comps
@base-x group.
So I just wondered a couple of naive questions:
- does bitmap-fonts have to be installed by default?
- what actually needs it?
Jens
_
> XEmacs needs it. We have an explicit reference to a LucidaTypewriter
> font.
Sure: and xorg-x11-fonts also provides LT.
I am not asking if we should drop bitmap-fonts
(though it needs to be split up and repackaged)...
the question was why are we installing it by default
and when can we stop? :
> IMHO default packages in default groups should have a clear user, or
> be downgraded to optional.
Right I suggest we make it optional in comps-f13 and see if anything "breaks".
Jens
___
Fedora-fonts-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com
http
23 matches
Mail list logo
