Problems detected in the oldstandard-sfd-fonts rawhide package!
On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 23:13 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Dear packager,
At 20091029T192211Z, while scanning the rawhide repository located at:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/static-repos/dist-rawhide-current/x86_64/
I have identified the following problems in your oldstandard-sfd-fonts
package:
SRPM RPM17
oldstandard-sfd-fonts oldstandard-sfd-fonts 3
Total 3
17. Fonts with partial script coverage
☛ Some font files included in the package are missing only a few glyphs
to be
accepted by fontconfig as covering one or several scripts. Therefore they
could be made useful to more people with only a little effort.
To check a font file script coverage, run fc-query with FC_DEBUG=256 and
look for lines like: script-id¹(number) { list-of-unicode-codepoints }
For example “mi(2) { 1e34 1e35 }” means fontconfig will accept the tested
file for Maori if codepoints 1e34 and 1e35 are added.
If you feel fontconfig is requiring a glyph which is not strictly
necessary
for a particular script, report the problem upstream².
¹ http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php
² https://bugs.freedesktop.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=fontconfig
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the oldstandard-sfd-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
hi,
I got this email, one each for *every* font package that I maintain. I
don't exactly understand what I'm supposed to do to fix the package. Can
someone please outline the procedure?
I ran fc-query on one of the files:
[pack...@ankur gargi-1.9]$ fc-query gargi.ttf
Pattern has 20 elts (size 32)
family: gargi(s)
familylang: en(s)
style: Medium(s)
stylelang: en(s)
fullname: gargi(s)
fullnamelang: en(s)
slant: 0(i)(s)
weight: 100(i)(s)
width: 100(i)(s)
foundry: unknown(s)
file: gargi.ttf(s)
index: 0(i)(s)
outline: FcTrue(s)
scalable: FcTrue(s)
charset: : 7fff
0009: fffe fbff ff3fbfff 007f
0020: 77193000 00010043
0022: 0004
00e9: 0700
(s)
lang: bh|bho|fj|hi|hne|ho|ia|ie|io|kj|kok|kwm|mai|mr|ms|ne|ng|nr|om|rn|
rw|sa|sn|so|ss|st|sw|ts|uz|xh|za|zu(s)
fontversion: 124518(i)(s)
capability: otlayout:DFLT otlayout:deva(s)
fontformat: TrueType(s)
decorative: FcFalse(s)
Is this what's supposed to be done? If yes, what now? If no, please
correct me :)
--
regards,
Ankur
___
Fedora-fonts-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: Problems detected in the oldstandard-sfd-fonts rawhide package!
Running FC_DEBUG=256 against ns-tiza gives me a list of about 50 scripts. Is a list that size normal? ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: Problems detected in the oldstandard-sfd-fonts rawhide package!
Le Sam 31 octobre 2009 10:57, TK009 a écrit : Running FC_DEBUG=256 against ns-tiza gives me a list of about 50 scripts. Is a list that size normal? Many latin scripts use ASCII + one or two additional glyphs. If tiza's author drawed basic latin (=ascii) only, I wouldn't be surprised the list was very long. It means that Tiza could almost be used, but not quite, by a lot of people. This is a shame. Please relay it to the font author -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: Problems detected in the oldstandard-sfd-fonts rawhide package!
Le Sam 31 octobre 2009 11:15, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
Le Sam 31 octobre 2009 10:57, TK009 a écrit :
Running FC_DEBUG=256 against ns-tiza gives me a list of about 50 scripts. Is
a
list that size normal?
Many latin scripts use ASCII + one or two additional glyphs. If tiza's author
drawed basic latin (=ascii) only, I wouldn't be surprised the list was very
long.
It means that Tiza could almost be used, but not quite, by a lot of people.
This is a shame. Please relay it to the font author
Of course please only relay elements of the form
foo(2) { 1e34 1e35 }
foo(0) means the coverage for foo is complete
foo(big number) means the coverage is incomplete, but you should not bother
upstream with something that needs a large effort (big number glyphs) on their
part.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
___
Fedora-fonts-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: Problems detected in the oldstandard-sfd-fonts rawhide package!
Le Sam 31 octobre 2009 11:15, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
Le Sam 31 octobre 2009 10:57, TK009 a écrit :
Running FC_DEBUG=256 against ns-tiza gives me a list of about 50 scripts. Is
a
list that size normal?
Many latin scripts use ASCII + one or two additional glyphs. If tiza's
author drawed basic latin (=ascii) only, I wouldn't be surprised the list
was very long.
It means that Tiza could almost be used, but not quite, by a lot of people.
This is a shame. Please relay it to the font author
Of course please only relay elements of the form
foo(2) { 1e34 1e35 }
foo(0) means the coverage for foo is complete
foo(big number) means the coverage is incomplete, but you should not bother
upstream with something that needs a large effort (big number glyphs) on their
part.
--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
Nicolas Mailhot
___
Fedora-fonts-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: Problems detected in the oldstandard-sfd-fonts rawhide package!
most need only one or two to complete. 7 of them could be fixed with just two glyph's, I am sure there are more like that in the list.As I have no artistic skill what so ever, I'll let the creator know. ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
