[Bug 453016] Review Request: un-core-fonts - Korean TrueType fonts
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] 2008-07-25 02:28 EST --- Sorry for the slow response. Those two files are quite different. Which one are you intending for the review? :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Issue 43029] support PS-OpenType/OTF/(SFNT with CFF) fonts for PDF export and printing
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, since many users expected this feature to already appear in 3.0 Best regards, Wolfgang - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 453016] Review Request: un-core-fonts - Korean TrueType fonts
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] 2008-07-25 02:33 EST --- I am assuming attachment 312229. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Issue 92062] Use only Unicode-Symbols
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 CC|'rainerbielefeld,regina,tr|'fedorafonts,rainerbielefe |oodon'|ld,regina,troodon' - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Issue 36535] Impossible to enter non italic greek characters
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 CC|'ih' |'fedorafonts,ih' --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 25 12:17:04 + 2008 --- DejaVu includes Greek - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 456527] Review Request: gentium-basic-fonts - Gentium Basic Font Family
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|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag||fedora-review? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-25 09:01 EST --- I'll start the review process now but since I'll be unavailable till september in a few days someone else will probably have to finish it (or you'll have to wait or be very reactive) 1. Please make sure you've done all the steps in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Font_package_lifecycle#2.a and in particular the wiki-related ones http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIL_Gentium_Basic_fonts 2. Gentium Basic is OFL, not GPL 3. Its homepage is http://scripts.sil.org/Gentium_Basic 4. Please make sure to touch the txt files so your recoding does not change their timestamp each time you rebuild them (look at one of the gfs fonts specs for example) 5. please use sil-gentium-basic-fonts as package name 6. for fedora versions ≥ 9 you can drop the -f argument to fc-cache 7. You can flesh up your description a bit. You can take inspiration from Debian's packaging http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/render_download.php?site_id=nrsiformat=filemedia_id=GentiumBasic_110_difffilename=ttf-sil-gentium-basic_1.1.diff.gz 8. Since the font is effectively a limited Gentium with more faces, you need to teach fontconfig to substitute it to Gentium (and the Gentium packager will need to do it the other way). Look how it's done for dejavu and dejavu lgc, that's just a little fontconfig file to add -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 456345] Review Request: sportrop-fonts - A multiline decorative font
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 PROTECTED] 2008-07-25 09:12 EST --- Looking at it a bit more, the TTF file size is 3 times the OTF file so the last one is probably incomplete. Package the TTF file (sorry) Also you can use %setup. The gfs fonts only use unzip directly because GFS releases fonts in a weird Apple zip variant %setup can not cope with So just: 1. revert to a simple package 2. that only includes the TTF file 3. and uses %setup 4. and take care of your missing wiki page and I'll approve the whole lot -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 456582] Review Request: tex-fontools - Tools for handling fonts with LaTeX and fontinst
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 Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-25 09:19 EST --- Neither of those URLs work -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Issue 43029] support PS-OpenType/OTF/(SFNT with CFF) fonts for PDF export and printing
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 moving this forward. We appreciate it very much. - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Issue 78749] some Latin text needs CTL processing
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 Target milestone|OOo 3.0 |OOo 3.x --- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Jul 25 14:26:24 + 2008 --- target - Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-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. ?xml version=1.0? !DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM fonts.dtd fontconfig !-- multiply the matrix of Meera font for solving size mismatch with Rachana-- match target=font test name=family mode=eq stringMeera/string /test edit name=matrix mode=assign times namematrix/name matrixdouble1.2/doubledouble0/double double0/doubledouble1.2/double /matrix /times /edit /match /fontconfig 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
Re: Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages
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 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 ___ 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
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 intend to publish more of the various tools used in the font production workflow (but it takes time and effort!). For example http://scripts.sil.org/FontUtils Victor Gaultney may cover this aspect during his talk at the next AtypI conference: http://atypi.org/05_Petersburg/20_main_program/view_presentation_html?presentid=465 Cheers, -- Nicolas signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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
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 publishing them, I think. Yes, the SIL designers and script engineers intend to publish more of the various tools used in the font production workflow (but it takes time and effort!). For example http://scripts.sil.org/FontUtils BTW can the AL1 licensing problem of Font::TTF be fixed before spot loses patience with us font people? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Artistic1Removal Victor Gaultney may cover this aspect during his talk at the next AtypI conference: http://atypi.org/05_Petersburg/20_main_program/view_presentation_html?presentid=465 Nice pointer, thanks! -- Nicolas Mailhot 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: A PackageKit browser plugin
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 to use the existing interface...while users are expected to use a new and completely different interface...we've widened the communication gap..even with email notifications turned on. Does anyone actually use packagedb to browse for available software? I have, at times. The fonts SIG maintains this wiki section http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts It would be mighty nice if we could just point to some semi-automated website instead. The problems as I see them are 1. we need info about not existing wishlist/in-review/rejected packages 2. we need some info not in pkgdb (style and unicode coverage, ideally autogenerated font png previews) Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot 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: Increasing point size of Meera font using fontconfig
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 maintainer wants to change a fontconfig rule for his font is frankly not scalable. As a bonus that also means fontconfig does not have to process rules for fonts not installed on the system. The whole conf.d change was made to make this kind of use possible. 2008/7/24 Behdad Esfahbod : 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. Thanks but really, it's a wiki you know. Anyway: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Auto-scaling_problem_fonts Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot 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: Increasing point size of Meera font using fontconfig
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, because isuing a fontconfig update each time a maintainer wants to change a fontconfig rule for his font is frankly not scalable. As a bonus that also means fontconfig does not have to process rules for fonts not installed on the system. The whole conf.d change was made to make this kind of use possible. agree, having .conf file with font package is very likely since it is for particular font, but problem can be conf.d will get overwrite after each update of fontconfig and possibility of loss of .conf files that is only problem i think 2008/7/24 Behdad Esfahbod : 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. Thanks but really, it's a wiki you know. Anyway: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fontconfig_packaging_tips#Auto-scaling_problem_fonts Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot -- Thanks Regards, - Pravin Satpute The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. --Bertrand Russell ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages
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 favour, but ... [...] 1. any package that makes use of fonts in a modern format like OpenType TT (TTF) or OpenType CFF (OTF) MUST have them packaged separately [...] ... what about fonts in other formats which happen to be included in a given package? I don't have any specific examples, just asking. Frankly, the other font formats are so much less useful than modern font formats, the probability someone did creative legal restructuring is much lower. The big exception are Type1 fonts but I just hope they can die die die (and if the Tex-Gyre situation is fixed and we can use OTF Tex-Gyre fonts instead of all ther URW font variants we currently ship I'll propose Type1 purging from the repository). In the meanwhile, it may make sense to add Type1 to the list. For other formats, the sad truth is no one so far has volunteered writing doc on how they should be packaged, so I'm afraid no one knows how to review them. -- Nicolas Mailhot 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: Had a look at Charis SIL
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 that SIL has a command line tool, volt2ttf, that can add OpenType features written in VOLT's XML format to a TTF file. Sadly, I think that FontForge only groks Adobe's (fea) feature format, but not not MS VOLT's XML format. Quote from the SIL web page that Nicolas S. linked: volt2ttf [-a attach.xml] [-t volt.txt] infile.ttf outfile.ttf Compiles volt source into OT tables in the font. Think of this as a 3rd party command-line version of MS VOLT. On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Nicolas Spalinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 publishing them, I think. Yes, the SIL designers and script engineers intend to publish more of the various tools used in the font production workflow (but it takes time and effort!). For example http://scripts.sil.org/FontUtils Victor Gaultney may cover this aspect during his talk at the next AtypI conference: http://atypi.org/05_Petersburg/20_main_program/view_presentation_html?presentid=465 Cheers, -- Nicolas ___ 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: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages
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 amended the proposal in a less format-oriented version https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/No_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages The big exception are Type1 fonts but I just hope they can die die die (and if the Tex-Gyre situation is fixed and we can use OTF I don't think this may happen in a while because some very interesting apps (though not mainstream desktop apps, fortunately) uses type1 fonts, mostly using t1lib, like xfig, xdvi, grace. Our TEX can use TTF (OpenType TT) and OTF (OpenType CFF) now. Given that OTF (OpenType CFF) embeds something very close to what PDF uses, I'd be surprised if Ghostscript could not use the OTF TEX-Gyre fonts directly. Do we really have so much interecting stuff that depends on Type1 once TEX and GS are out of the way? In the meanwhile, it may make sense to add Type1 to the list. For tex I believe that it will be too complicated to use the system fonts. TEX now uses the same formats as everyone else (TTF and OTF). I frankly do not think we can afford (or have the resources) to duplicate megs of fonts in TEX-specific packages. If TEX can not use the fonts in fontconfig directories, it just has to symlink them somewhere it can. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot 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: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages]
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 TeX still works best with type-1 fonts. And it isn't likely to go away soon. Drat, and I was so happy to get rid of them :( All my other points still stand, though. — We should not ship X versions of the same URW fonts. We should consolidate on the most recent one in OTF format. — We should not hide general-purpose fonts in app-specific directories. TEX should use system fonts directly. — We should no ship font collections in a single package when the legal context is so dangerous, but audit each font separately. Every time someone has tried the font collection way it has finished badly. -- Nicolas Mailhot 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: [Fontconfig] TTF/OTF packaging thoughts?
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 meaning having one file for a face. -- behdad http://behdad.org/ Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: TTF/OTF packaging thoughts?
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 this complexity just to work around OpenOffice.org bugs, I propose the following simplified policy. […] 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), Done here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Choosing_the_right_font_format_to_package -- Nicolas Mailhot 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
[OT] Re: Fwd: Mukti fontset license
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 of the messages you sent to various font projects. If you have the time, please contribute some of it to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pfrields/DraftUpstreamRequestEmail You seem quite capable of helping make it a terrific template. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot 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: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages]
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 take on the subject of TeX fonts. ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages]
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 violates TDS. If you don't what that means, then don't take on the subject of TeX fonts. 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 system, and TeX users have hardended expectations about how it works; if Fedora's TeX package fiddles with things, that will be a loss for users. (I'm still not getting Nicolas' emails :-( ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages]
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 system, and TeX users have hardended expectations about how it works; if Fedora's TeX package fiddles with things, that will be a loss for users. If Fedora ships a screwed-up TeX, it would incur a loss of users, mostly of PAYING academic ones that buy RHEL through their departments, like UMD's CS dept., which just finished a big upgrade of all the CS RHEL machines... FYI: Macs are already the preferred choice for laptops amongst my colleagues, because the can run both Unix apps and Powerpoint hassle-free (OOo is still pathetic for presentations, and not everyone has the patience that Beamer requires, especially for graphics). Back to the technical side, a font for TeX requires a tfm file (TeX font metrics). To use it with LaTeX you also need a fd file, an sometimes a sty with macros is provided, especially if the font has features. These files don't really belong the the system fonts directory because nothing but TeX can use them... So, for fubu-fonts, you'd need an extra fubu-fonts-tex, or possible even a fubu-fonts-latex package to hold the extra files (you need the latter if you consider that latex is not required to use plain tex). What I would like to see system fonts installing themselves for TeX use, say via an autoinst postinst script. Like I said my draft email, that's a lot of hassle for the users to do manually. That's why I'm trying to get fontools resurected... Also, the current texlive package has inconsistent rules for font formats. The Gyre fonts are included as OTF, while the LM (Latin Modern) are not, even though XeTeX needs them that way if you wan to select them as non-default fonts. I suspect this didn't originate from upstream. ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages]
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. XeTeX can do that. TeX probably NEVER will because that violates TDS. If you don't what that means, then don't take on the subject of TeX fonts. 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 system, and TeX users have hardended expectations about how it works; if Fedora's TeX package fiddles with things, that will be a loss for users. We're under a *nix. The TEX packagers can symlink the files to TEX internal directories if that makes TEX users feel better. Though we've been resorbing various private font repositories in the past years (starting with the xorg ones) and mid term I don't see how TEX can escape the trend. That's the bad thing of switching to a common font format. (The good thing being of course that you get access to the fonts other groups provide) (I'm still not getting Nicolas' emails :-( I'm routing lab6.com through another smtp now. Of course that won't change mails sent directly to the list. Someone is blackholing me between Red Hat servers and yours. -- Nicolas Mailhot 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: TeX fonts, part one [Was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Proposed amendment to general packaging guidelines: no bundling of fonts in other packages]
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 app-specific directories; TeX predates all other programs in a GNU/Linux system, and TeX users have hardended expectations about how it works; if Fedora's TeX package fiddles with things, that will be a loss for users. If Fedora ships a screwed-up TeX, it would incur a loss of users, mostly of PAYING academic ones that buy RHEL through their departments, like UMD's CS dept., which just finished a big upgrade of all the CS RHEL machines... Oh, please, I heard the same bogus arguments from Java people when we started integrating Java under Linux at JPackage. I was not the Java way (the Java way being whatever screwed up setup SUN historically used). There would be a loss of users. Etc, etc A few year forward SUN was quoting JPackage in all its Linux press releases and trying to catch up with us. There is no reason to fear changes when those changes are sound engineering. Back to the technical side, a font for TeX requires a tfm file (TeX font metrics). To use it with LaTeX you also need a fd file, an sometimes a sty with macros is provided, especially if the font has features. These files don't really belong the the system fonts directory because nothing but TeX can use them... And thus TEX can keep them. But the common resources (OpenType fonts), it gets to share them with the rest of the system, which means installation in system dirs. What I would like to see system fonts installing themselves for TeX use, say via an autoinst postinst script. You're welcome to propose amendments to our current font packaging policy. We have no TEX rules right now because no TEX user was interested in writing them and other people obviously couldn't. The main requirements are: 1. The font specs must be kept simple (ie no complex in-spec scripting) 2. A font package can not require any specific font system on install. It's only allowed to use one if already present, and it's the font system responsability to discover resources that were installed before it was on system. (same proposal to bitmap users that complain of anti-bitmap ostracism) Like I said my draft email, that's a lot of hassle for the users to do manually. That's why I'm trying to get fontools resurected... Also, the current texlive package has inconsistent rules for font formats. The Gyre fonts are included as OTF, while the LM (Latin Modern) are not, even though XeTeX needs them that way if you wan to select them as non-default fonts. I suspect this didn't originate from upstream. I can't comment on this part. For me they're all wrong. -- Nicolas Mailhot 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
