Le 19/08/2023 à 16:04, Gunnar Hjalmarsson a écrit :
As you may have seen, I submitted <https://bugs.debian.org/1050043> and
fixed it. Thanks for mentioning it!
Yes I saw that, you CC'd me ; and thank you for acting on this problem.
Seeing that the time I spend on writing detailed e-mails to the BTS is
not in vain, is very much appreciated :)
On 2023-08-17 15:34, Raphaël Halimi wrote:
IMHO, if Debian wants to follow the upstream fontconfig default to
use the Noto fonts, the system should work without the DejaVu
packages installed, so it would make more sense to patch fontconfig
to use Noto Mono as a default and keep the "Noto look" across the
whole system, than to go back to DejaVu Sans Mono.
As regards "Noto look", and despite of the name "Noto Mono", personally
I think that DejaVu Sans Mono aligns better with Noto Sans/Serif than
Noto Mono does. Look at the letter 'g', for instance.
Also:
* If Debian would change the default monospace font, we would not follow
upstream. That's true whether we would pick Noto Mono or DejaVu Sans Mono.
As I said, having a "pure" Noto set or a mix of Noto and DejaVu set by
default is a personal opinion (I did state "IMHO") and I admit I didn't
compare those fonts thoroughly to see which one of Noto (Sans) Mono or
DejaVu Sans Mono goes better with Noto Sans/Serif. I took a guess purely
based on the fact that fonts distributed as parts of the same set are
supposed to go along.
Since you're part of the team who maintains the package, I won't discuss
your decision on that point (but I'd still prefer full-Noto or
full-DejaVu over a mix of both, although I agree this may be a purely
psychological bias).
* There were reasons why I broke out DejaVu Sans Mono to its own
package. :) Given that change, it's possible to install
fonts-dejavu-mono without installing fonts-dejavu-core.
This remark made me read the Debian changelog and query #1043271. Thanks
for clarifying that.
For those reasons I disagree with the quoted statement.
As I said, we have a divergence of opinion, but as the maintainer of
this package, you have the final word.
Another question is if the Noto Sans Mono deficiency is important enough
to motivate a Debian level change in this respect. I don't know.
@Fabian, I sent this reply to you as well in the hope to broaden the
discussion a bit.
Here, I don't agree ; not on bringing more people in the discussion (the
more thinking minds, the wiser the final decision will be), but on the
very problem itself: did you see the screenshots I provided ? Won't you
agree that the current default configuration is ugly, whether with Gnome
Terminal or XTerm ?
(I know that for XTerm it's not really the "default configuration" since
it uses bitmap fonts by default, but still, I consider the font resolved
by the "Monospace" alias for TrueType fonts to be some kind of default).
It's worth mentioning that the fonts-noto packages in Debian ship almost
3 years old fonts. An update to latest upstream would be highly
desirable. Possibly Noto Sans Mono has improved.
I didn't know that. Thanks for mentioning it.
So, I just downloaded NotoSansMono-Regular.ttf from its new home [1]
(the old repository in the Debian copyright file has been archived),
opened it in font-viewer and... Sadly, the spacing is still
"Proportional" and not "Monospace" :(
[1]
https://github.com/notofonts/notofonts.github.io/blob/main/fonts/NotoSansMono/hinted/ttf/NotoSansMono-Regular.ttf
After all this time, I seriously doubt that that Google intends to fix
that. Maybe we could open an issue in the new Github repository ? My
hopes are not high, though. I'm afraid it will be ignored like the ones
before.
Regards,
--
Raphaël Halimi
