https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820166
--- Comment #10 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mail...@laposte.net> --- > So I'm wondering why you did push your packages only even though you know you > break it. First, this change did not break any Fedora package or config. It broke one *user* configuration. And second, I’ve been telling fontconfig upstream for years the syntax in fontconfig was not clean and robust enough for today’s needs (today as in the today of 12 years ago, yes the reports have been going that long). At one point, I bowed to your expertise and pushed stuff with the existing syntax. So, not going back after waiting 12 years if that means you can keep ignoring the need. Which you *still* are in all your replies. The problem is not in the way Droid was unified. That has been requested (and not just by me) for 12+ years. The problem is not that Noto is not unified. Sure it needs unification like Droid did but IT IS NOT THE ONLY WIDE COVERAGE FONT FAMILY OUT THERE. There are lots of them, Google and Adobe and IBM and others have been funding their creating for a decade now. Please propose a way forward that makes it easy for the requester, or any other fontconfig user, to unify the wide coverage font families they want to use. Because neither me, nor any other Fedora packagers, are going to unify the whole mass of font files that exist out there. FEDORA PACKAGERS CAN NOT SUBSTITUTE FOR USER-FRIENDLY FONTCONFIG SYNTAX. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ fonts-bugs mailing list -- fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to fonts-bugs-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org
