https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080
Lukas Ruzicka <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |[email protected] Flags| |needinfo?([email protected]) --- Comment #3 from Lukas Ruzicka <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Akira TAGOH from comment #2) > Apparently that testcase is outdated. the latest one would be > https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/fonts/status/36.html though, it isn't > reflected packages from langpacks. I'm updating the list for other purpose. > sorry for inconvenience. Hello, coming back to this bug once again. We have this test failing again because it seems that the font list on the system differs from what we expected. What the system tells us: Sans -> NotoSansArabic-VF.ttf: "Noto Sans Arabic" "Regular" Serif -> NotoNaskhArabic-VF.ttf: "Noto Naskh Arabic" "Regular" Mono -> Vazirmatn[wght].ttf: "Vazirmatn" "Regular" What the table provides and what we expect: Sans -> NotoNaskhArabic-VF.ttf "Noto Naskh Arabic" "Regular" Serif -> NotoNaskhArabic-VF.ttf: "Noto Naskh Arabic" "Regular" Mono -> PakTypeNaskhBasic.ttf: "PakType Naskh Basic" "Regular" Can you tell us, what the correct combination is for Fedora 37 and if the tables are correct, why there are different defaults on the installed system? thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080 _______________________________________________ fonts-bugs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
