Re: fontconfig config priority
Le jeudi 17 décembre 2009 à 23:06 +0900, Akira TAGOH a écrit : Hi, Hi, I have a question and a suggestion for the fontconfig config priority in the font packaging policy. I'm writing a small script to validate the fontconfig config in packages to not mess up. Wondeful! If you want commit access to fontpackages to have it integrated with our other tools, just ask (if the licensing is OK with you) the goal is to check if the priority is set accurately and the config files are following our templates. it roughly started working. but I'm not quite sure what Latin in LGC really covers. is it similar to what Latin-[1-10] covers? or more strictly applied? LGC roughtly means latin-like alphabetical scripts that are written linearly with few ligatures, and those that exist optional (not indic, not arabic, not cjk…) Also an unofficial requirement for those scripts is to be from regions where people are familiar enough with latin letters not to butcher them when they include them in fonts A more professional description would be welcome :) The suggestion is, about improving the policy to set the priority more strictly. I have two ideas: 1) have variety of the priorities for non-LGC fonts as well like for default, main and low perhaps. even though LGC fonts has a priority for default font, but not for non-LGC fonts. it may messes up their default font if multiple fonts with the same priority such as 65 are installed. this priority things could avoids this issue. it may be something like: 65-69 ... High priority non-LGC fonts 70... Main non-LGC font list 71-64 ... Low priority non-LGC fonts Those ranges are inherited from the fontconfig master file split that occured a few years ago upstream. I'm not so sure that nowadays they are the most appropriate. We've certainly started pushing a lot more fontconfig files that upstream thought at the time, and are hitting many limitations (layout that was supposed to be flexible enough to allow customization, but is not really because of the files that have kept long font lists). If you try to split the non-latin file, for example, you quickly hit prefix starvation. However, that's just MHO. Other people may not share it. But please keep an open mind and do propose another file naming convention if you find a better one. I think that the main requirements would be to 1. clearly define the ranges a local sysadmin, a distro, and fontconfig upstream fallbacks should use 2. try to separate classes of fonts to minimize risks of conflicts (like the current lgc/non lgc split) 3. make locale appear when it is relevant 4. make the font names appear in filenames so people do not need grepping to locate where the rules associated with their font are It is possible in fontconfig to use something longer that the current 2-digit prefixes to order files 2) describes what exactly default, Main and Low priority means. during developing and testing this script, I see some packages is possibly wrongly set the priority to their fontconfig config files, for example, some font is set the priority to 57 that is supposed to be the default font, but not marked as mandatory in comps. so I'd suggest to update comps or change the priority like: - mandatory for higher priority - default for main priority - optional for low priority and update the policy with it as well. I don't think using comps brutally will work : 1. currently we do not have separate comps groups for every fontconfig/css generic, fontconfig and apps really want a separate font stack for each generic (though this could be fixed by splitting the master fonts comps group) 2. sometimes our requirements are a lot more subtle than mandatory/default : dejavu and liberation are both default, but their ordering is not random However I can only applaud trying to improve our fontconfig packaging, and writing qa tests: this is sorely needed, if we want to continue improving Fedora font support. Best 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: FreeType patented bytecode interpreter now in rawhide
Le Ven 4 décembre 2009 13:50, Matěj Cepl a écrit : Dne 4.12.2009 01:13, Behdad Esfahbod napsal(a): Since the patents covering the TrueType bytecode interpreter expired at the end of October, I've now built FreeType in rawhide with that part of code enabled. can we hope for the update in F12 as well, please? Given how any font rendering changes seems to degrade font rendering for some users, I'd very much prefer it went through a full release testing cycle before hitting unsuspecting users. -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
[RFA] Font audit results for Fedora 12 and 2009-11-22 fedora-devel
Hi, With a little delay here are the font audit results for Fedora 12 and 2009-11-22 fedora-devel. I think I've taken into account all the feedback I received since last run. More feedback is of course welcome (except for the file size computation, I know it's broken, was not worth re-doing a 7h test run to fix it). Seeing some numbers go down would be nice. Individual packagers should have received their personalized notification some hours ago (some in duplicate, the first relay host I used blacklisted me as a spammer sometime in the middle of the run so I had to restart everything, sorry about that, will try to improve). Some people asked me why I didn't go the bugzilla route: look at the numbers, there's no way I can write a script smart enough to manage hundreds of bugs with different states. And doing it manually alone would be a nightmare. Special mention goes to jussilehtola for xine-ui: not only he managed to add 27 font files not packaged according to Fedora guidelines during the F-12 cycle, but 14 are copies of the same font. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: [RFA] Font audit results for Fedora 12 (final)
(sorry, this one is for devel) -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
[RFA] Font test result differences between Fedora 11 and Fedora 12
A. Test result changes: P# t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 t9 t10 t11 t12 t13 t14 t15 t16 t17 t18 1‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ 5‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ ‧‧‧ 2‧‧ ‧ ‧ 1 ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ ‧‧‧ 3‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧1‧‧‧ ‧‧‧ 41‧ 1 ‧ ‧ 1‧ ‧‧‧-2 1‧11 ‧11 5‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧1‧‧‧ ‧1‧ 6‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧1‧‧‧ ‧11 7‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧1‧‧‧ 11‧ 8‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧1‧‧‧ 11‧ 9‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧1‧‧‧ ‧1‧ 10 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧2‧‧‧ ‧2‧ 11 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧1‧‧‧ ‧1‧ 12 ‧‧ ‧ -1 ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ ‧‧‧ 13 -5 ‧ -5 ‧ ‧ -5 ‧ -1 -5 ‧‧-5 ‧-5 -5 -4 -5 -5 14 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ 1 ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ ‧‧‧ 15 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧4‧‧‧‧44 ‧3‧ 16 -1 ‧ -1 ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧1-1 ‧-1 -1 ‧-1 ‧ 17 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧1‧‧‧ ‧1‧ 18 -1 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ ‧‧‧ 19 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧‧1‧ ‧‧‧ 20 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧‧1‧ ‧‧‧ 21 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧-1 ‧‧‧ ‧‧-4 22 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ ‧‧-4 23 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ ‧‧-4 24 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ 1 ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ ‧‧‧ 25 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ 1 ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ ‧‧‧ 26 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ -1 ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ ‧‧‧ 27 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ -1 ‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ 1‧‧ 28 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧2‧‧‧‧‧‧ ‧2‧ 29 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ 1 ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ ‧‧‧ 30 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ -1 ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ ‧‧‧ 31 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ -1 ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ ‧‧‧ 32 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ ‧‧1 33 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧1‧‧‧ ‧1‧ 34 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧1‧‧‧ ‧1‧ 35 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ 1 ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ ‧‧‧ 36 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ -4 ‧ ‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ ‧‧‧ 37 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ 1 ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ ‧‧‧ 38 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧3‧‧‧‧ ‧‧‧ 39 ‧‧ 27 ‧ ‧ ‧7 27 27 ‧‧27 20 27 27 ‧27 ‧ 40 1‧ 1 ‧ ‧ 1‧ 1‧‧‧‧‧11 11‧ 41 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧1‧‧‧ ‧‧‧ 42 -2 -1 -2 ‧ ‧ -1 ‧ ‧‧‧‧-2 -2 -2 -2 ‧-2 -2 43 ‧1 ‧ ‧ ‧ 1‧ ‧‧‧‧22‧‧ ‧2‧ 44 ‧‧ 1 ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧1‧11 ‧1‧ 45 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧3‧‧‧‧ ‧‧‧ 46 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ -2 -2 ‧ 47 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ 22‧ 48 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ -1 ‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ ‧‧‧ 49 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ -15 ‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ ‧‧‧ 50 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ -3 ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ ‧‧‧ 51 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ 2 ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧‧‧‧ ‧‧‧ 52 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧4‧‧‧ ‧4‧ 53 ‧‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧4‧‧‧ ‧4
[RFA] Font test result differences between Fedora 12 and 2009-11-22 devel
A. Test result changes: P# t1 t2 t3 t4 t5 t6 t7 t8 t9 t10 t11 t12 t13 t14 1‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧1 ‧‧‧1‧ 2‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ -10 ‧ ‧‧‧‧‧ 35 ‧ 5 ‧ 5 1 5 ‧5 55455 4‧ ‧ ‧ 1 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧ 5‧ ‧ ‧ 1 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧ 6‧ ‧ ‧ -1 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧ 75 -1 -1 ‧ 1 ‧ -1 ‧-1 -1 -1 ‧-1 -6 8‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ 4 ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧ 9‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ 1 ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧ 10 ‧ ‧ ‧ 1 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧ 11 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧-1 ‧‧‧‧‧ 12 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ -1 ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧ 13 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧1 ‧‧11‧ 14 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧1 ‧‧‧1‧ 15 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧1 ‧‧‧1‧ 16 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧11‧ 17 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧11‧ 18 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧1‧ 19 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧4 ‧‧‧4‧ 20 -1 ‧ -1 ‧ -1 ‧ ‧ ‧-1 ‧-1 ‧-1 ‧ 21 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ 1 1 ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧ 22 ‧ ‧ ‧ 1 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧ 23 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ -2 ‧ ‧‧‧‧‧ 24 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧25 25 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧1 ‧‧‧‧‧ 26 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ 1 ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧ 27 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧1 ‧‧‧1‧ 28 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧1 ‧‧‧1‧ 29 ‧ 2 2 ‧ 1 ‧ 2 ‧2 2212‧ 30 ‧ ‧ ‧ -1 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧‧ 31 ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧ ‧‧ ‧‧‧‧1 Balance 9 1 5 2 12 2 6 -12 15 65818 25 P# Maintainer RPM SRPM 1 adsllc drehatlas-xaporho-fonts drehatlas-xaporho-fonts 2 akahlphp-ZendFramework php-ZendFramework-tests 3 awjb koffice koffice-core 4 chkr xskat xskat 5 dougslandzbar zbar 6 hedayat rcssmonitor rcssmonitor 7 icon python-reportlab python-reportlab 8 jnovytexlive-texmf texlive-texmf-fonts 9 lyosnorezel darkgarden-fonts darkgarden-fonts 10 nbecker libotflibotf 11 nim apanov-heuristica-fonts apanov-heuristica-fonts 12 nim dejavu-fonts dejavu-sans-fonts 13 ozamosi gdouros-aegean-fonts gdouros-aegean-fonts 14 ozamosi gdouros-aegyptus-fontsgdouros-aegyptus-fonts 15 ozamosi gdouros-akkadian-fontsgdouros-akkadian-fonts 16 ozamosi gdouros-alexander-fonts gdouros-alexander-fonts 17 ozamosi gdouros-analecta-fontsgdouros-analecta-fonts 18 ozamosi gdouros-musica-fonts gdouros-musica-fonts 19 ozamosi msimonson-anonymouspro-fonts msimonson-anonymouspro-fonts 20 phuang scim scim-doc 21 rdieter lyx lyx-cmex10-fonts 22 roma xpaintxpaint 23 s4504kr stellariumstellarium 24 stevetuxpaint tuxpaint 25 tagohsazanami-fontssazanami-gothic-fonts 26 tagohvlgothic-fontsvlgothic-fonts 27 tk009ns-bola-fonts ns-bola-fonts 28 tk009ns-tiza-chalk-fonts ns-tiza-chalk-fonts 29 wart wormuxwormux-data 30 xgl-maintxorg-x11-apps xorg-x11-apps 31 xulchris pygamepygame t1. Error: fonts in arch packages t2. Warning: bad font naming t3. Warning: fonts in packages that do not respect font naming conventions t4. Warning: core fonts use t5. Error: font faces duplicated by different packages t6. Error: exact font duplication t7. Error: packages that mix different font families t8. Warning: font linking t9. Warning: fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks t10. Error: fonts in packages that contain non-font data t11. Error: fonts deployed outside /usr/share/fonts t12. Suggestion: fonts with partial unicode block coverage t13. Suggestion: fonts with partial script coverage t14. Error: rpmlint signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message
[RFA] Font package differences between Fedora 12 and 2009-11-22 Fedora devel
B. Font package changes: = apanov-heuristica-fonts.rpm (apanov-heuristica-fonts.src.rpm, nim, M) ⇒ apanov-heuristica-fonts.src.rpm, nim, M − Heuristica, Bold, CFF /usr/share/fonts/apanov-heuristica/Heuristica-Bold.otf + Heuristica, Bold, TrueType /usr/share/fonts/apanov-heuristica/Heuristica-Bold.ttf − Heuristica, Bold Italic, CFF /usr/share/fonts/apanov-heuristica/Heuristica-BoldItalic.otf + Heuristica, Bold Italic, TrueType /usr/share/fonts/apanov-heuristica/Heuristica-BoldItalic.ttf − Heuristica, Italic, CFF /usr/share/fonts/apanov-heuristica/Heuristica-Italic.otf + Heuristica, Italic, TrueType /usr/share/fonts/apanov-heuristica/Heuristica-Italic.ttf − Heuristica, Regular, CFF /usr/share/fonts/apanov-heuristica/Heuristica-Regular.otf + Heuristica, Regular, TrueType /usr/share/fonts/apanov-heuristica/Heuristica-Regular.ttf + drehatlas-xaporho-fonts.rpm (drehatlas-xaporho-fonts.src.rpm, adsllc, M) + Xaporho, Regular, CFF /usr/share/fonts/drehatlas-xaporho/Xaporho.otf + gdouros-aegean-fonts.rpm (gdouros-aegean-fonts.src.rpm, ozamosi, M) + Aegean, Regular, TrueType /usr/share/fonts/gdouros-aegean/Aegean.otf + gdouros-aegyptus-fonts.rpm (gdouros-aegyptus-fonts.src.rpm, ozamosi, M) + Aegyptus, Regular, TrueType /usr/share/fonts/gdouros-aegyptus/Aegyptus.otf + gdouros-akkadian-fonts.rpm (gdouros-akkadian-fonts.src.rpm, ozamosi, M) + Akkadian, Regular, TrueType /usr/share/fonts/gdouros-akkadian/Akkadian.otf + gdouros-alexander-fonts.rpm (gdouros-alexander-fonts.src.rpm, ozamosi, M) + Alexander, Regular, TrueType /usr/share/fonts/gdouros-alexander/Alexander.otf + gdouros-analecta-fonts.rpm (gdouros-analecta-fonts.src.rpm, ozamosi, M) + Analecta, Regular, TrueType /usr/share/fonts/gdouros-analecta/Analecta.otf + gdouros-musica-fonts.rpm (gdouros-musica-fonts.src.rpm, ozamosi, M) + Musica, Regular, TrueType /usr/share/fonts/gdouros-musica/Musica.otf + koffice-core.rpm (koffice.src.rpm, awjb) + Arev Sans, Bold, TrueType /usr/share/kde4/apps/formulashape/fonts/ArevBd.ttf + Arev Sans, Bold Oblique, TrueType /usr/share/kde4/apps/formulashape/fonts/ArevBI.ttf + Arev Sans, Oblique, TrueType /usr/share/kde4/apps/formulashape/fonts/ArevIt.ttf + Arev Sans, Regular, TrueType /usr/share/kde4/apps/formulashape/fonts/Arev.ttf + cmex10, Regular, TrueType /usr/share/kde4/apps/formulashape/fonts/cmex10.ttf + msimonson-anonymouspro-fonts.rpm (msimonson-anonymouspro-fonts.src.rpm, ozamosi, M) + Anonymous Pro, Bold, TrueType /usr/share/fonts/msimonson-anonymouspro/Anonymous Pro B.ttf + Anonymous Pro, Bold Italic, TrueType /usr/share/fonts/msimonson-anonymouspro/Anonymous Pro BI.ttf + Anonymous Pro, Italic, TrueType /usr/share/fonts/msimonson-anonymouspro/Anonymous Pro I.ttf + Anonymous Pro, Regular, TrueType /usr/share/fonts/msimonson-anonymouspro/Anonymous Pro.ttf + ns-bola-fonts.rpm (ns-bola-fonts.src.rpm, tk009, M) + Bola, Regular, TrueType /usr/share/fonts/ns-bola/bola.ttf + ns-tiza-chalk-fonts.rpm (ns-tiza-chalk-fonts.src.rpm, tk009, M) + Tiza, Regular, TrueType /usr/share/fonts/ns-tiza-chalk/tiza_chalk.ttf = python-reportlab.rpm (python-reportlab.src.rpm, icon) ⇒ python-reportlab.src.rpm, icon + Bitstream Vera Sans, Bold, TrueType /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/reportlab/fonts/VeraBd.ttf − Bitstream Vera Sans, Bold, TrueType /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/reportlab/fonts/VeraBd.ttf + Bitstream Vera Sans, Bold Oblique, TrueType /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/reportlab/fonts/VeraBI.ttf − Bitstream Vera Sans, Bold Oblique, TrueType /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/reportlab/fonts/VeraBI.ttf + Bitstream Vera Sans, Oblique, TrueType /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/reportlab/fonts/VeraIt.ttf − Bitstream Vera Sans, Oblique, TrueType /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/reportlab/fonts/VeraIt.ttf + Bitstream Vera Sans, Roman, TrueType /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/reportlab/fonts/Vera.ttf − Bitstream Vera Sans, Roman, TrueType /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/reportlab/fonts/Vera.ttf + Dark Garden, Regular, Type 1 /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/reportlab/fonts/DarkGardenMK.pfb − LettErrorRobot, Chrome, Type 1 /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/reportlab/fonts/LeERC___.PFB − Rina, Regular, TrueType /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/reportlab/fonts/rina.ttf — scim-doc.rpm (scim.src.rpm , phuang) − FreeSans, Medium, TrueType /usr/share/doc/scim-doc-1.4.9/html/FreeSans.ttf = tuxpaint.rpm (tuxpaint.src.rpm, steve) ⇒ tuxpaint.src.rpm, steve + DejaVu Sans, Book, TrueType /usr/share/tuxpaint/fonts/default_font.ttf − DejaVu Sans, Condensed, TrueType /usr/share/tuxpaint/fonts/default_font.ttf + SubsetForTuxPaint, , TrueType /usr/share/tuxpaint/fonts/locale/zh_TW.ttf −
Re: [RFA] Font audit results for Fedora 12 and 2009-11-22 fedora-devel
Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 12:54 -0600, Jon Ciesla a écrit : I question the taste of this remark. Was it really necessary to bring this up in such a public forum? I guess this just reflect frustration in seing xine-ui adding new copies of the same fonts months after months even though it is explicitely demanded not to in packaging guidelines and it was pointed multiple times whenever the script result were posted to this list this past year. You're right I should not have posted it this way. -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: [RFA] Font audit results for Fedora 12 (final)
Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 13:43 -0500, Neal Becker a écrit : What does this mean? I received one for libotf. Neither libotf, nor libotf-devel seem to ship any fonts. As explained in the text of the message you're received libotf attempts to access fonts through the core fonts backend which is bad -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: tcpdf fonts
Le Dim 15 novembre 2009 01:14, Oron Peled a écrit : Hi, I packaged TCEXAM (tcexam.org) for review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465159 One of the issues I (and the reviewer) have is that the included TCPDF (tcpdf.org) application is using embedded fonts for rendering the PDF. This is not good at all :( As a result, I have several questions for the members of this list: 1. From a brief look, it seems the bundled fonts are free and included in Fedora. How about the almohanad and ZarBold, anybody knows? No idea 2. Better substitutes? Defaults? Usually, using the system defaults as computed by fontconfig works best (however it is worth locating the upstream of the missing fonts and packaging them if their licensing is fedora-compatible) 3. For use by tcpdf, the fonts are converted as described in: http://www.tecnick.com/public/code/cp_dpage.php?aiocp_dp=tcpdf_fonts a. One tools which is bundled is afm2pfm (and its inverse pfm2afm): * The upstream of these tools: - http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/fonts/utilities/pfm2afm/ b. Another bundled tool is ttf2ufm: * Looks like a modified copy of ttf2pt1 which is packaged in Fedora. You should not ask yourself how to generate afm files from ttf fonts but how to use system ttf fonts directly. AFM/PFM/PFB/PFA are legacy formats and you can't convert reliably ttf/otf/otf fonts to them (for one, they don't have the same glyph number limits, and fonts like DejaVu Sans or Free Sans are way over PS limits). Granted, adapting the pdf engine to use modern fonts (or finding a replacement) is likely to be less trivial than butchering fonts, but the current hack will cause you no end of problems and I suspect a solution would help clean up bad code in many projects. IIRC cairo had some pdf capabilities, the poppler people or Behdad could probably tell you more. 4. While doing a search for this mail I found that moodle (packaged in Fedora) bundles TCPDF (and the fonts). So it seems we have a common problem... Yes, moodle is no good :( Should not have passed review at all. If you choose to keep a conversion step, please make sure you convert from fonts packaged in Fedora (exact version in Fedora that passed legal review), and that you re-convert each time the Fedora version changes (either by converting dynamically or by pegging in deps the exact font package version you used in build) Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: M+ fonts
Le Mar 10 novembre 2009 07:45, Igshaan Mesias a écrit : Hi, 2009/11/10 かいお (Kaio) k...@kaio.me: (CC'ed Tom 'spot' Callaway) Are all the fonts listed in http://www.geocities.jp/ep3797/modified_fonts_01.html members of mplus font? The font listed there seem to be mixes of multiple fonts. Which is only going to work if the licenses of all the font files used are compatible with each other (mixes is one big reason why sticking to standard licenses is a good idea) Also the license statements on http://mplus-fonts.sourceforge.jp/mplus-outline-fonts/#license in full? Could you persuade the author to release under GPL or any other better license? I will try. GPL + FE or OFl please -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: M+ fonts
Le Mar 10 novembre 2009 00:49, かいお (Kaio) a écrit : (2009年11月10日 05:15), Igshaan Mesias wrote: I have packaged M+ family of fonts. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/M%2B_fonts Hi Igshaan, I wonder if you could package it with alphanumeric name? such as mplus-fonts because I worry if usage of `+` could pass the package review. :) We have some packages with + in their names in the repo, however this is not something we want to generalise. -- 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 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
New audit messages
Hi all, I did what I could based on current feedback to improve the audit messages and make them clearer and less threatening. If you didn't feel comfortable with the previous version, please check the new text and tell me what you think about it (what you don't like, suggestions to make it better, patches, etc http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/fontpackages.git?p=fontpackages.git;a=blob;f=bin/repo-font-audit -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: What would be considered a fault in font encodings?
to the people who get on in their inbox and they do not feel aggressed by them. This seems very simple, but it is incredibly important to get things to change. If you are interested to make floss fonts better, and have some time to donate, there is a lot of work to do. As you noted one first step could be to triage fontlint output, and make it more useful. (add explanations, review error criticity, try to output something scripts can easily be fed, etc). The number of people working on the subject right now is really to low to make quick progress. Any new contributor would make a huge difference. -- Nicolas Mailhot -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Problems detected in the adf-accanthis-fonts rawhide package!
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 adf-accanthis-fonts package:
SRPM RPM17 19
adf-accanthis-fonts adf-accanthis-2-fonts 4 4
adf-accanthis-fonts adf-accanthis-3-fonts 4 4
adf-accanthis-fonts adf-accanthis-fonts4 4
Total 12 12
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
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the adf-accanthis-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
adf-accanthis-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the abyssinica-fonts rawhide package!
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 abyssinica-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 17 18
abyssinica-fonts abyssinica-fonts 1 1
Total 1 1
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
18. Fonts with partial unicode block coverage
☛ Some font files included in the package are missing only a few glyphs to
fully cover an Unicode block. Therefore they could be made useful to more
people with only a little effort.
The Unicode consortium revises its tables regularly, and therefore a font
may need to be extended to maintain its full coverage when a new Unicode
revision is published¹.
To check a font file unicode coverage, run the ttfcoverage command. It only
works for modern SFNT fonts (.otf, .ttf).
¹ http://www.unicode.org/charts/
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the abyssinica-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
abyssinica-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the asana-math-fonts rawhide package!
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 asana-math-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 17 18 19
asana-math-fonts asana-math-fonts 1 1 1
Total 1 1 1
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
18. Fonts with partial unicode block coverage
☛ Some font files included in the package are missing only a few glyphs to
fully cover an Unicode block. Therefore they could be made useful to more
people with only a little effort.
The Unicode consortium revises its tables regularly, and therefore a font
may need to be extended to maintain its full coverage when a new Unicode
revision is published¹.
To check a font file unicode coverage, run the ttfcoverage command. It only
works for modern SFNT fonts (.otf, .ttf).
¹ http://www.unicode.org/charts/
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the asana-math-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
asana-math-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the apanov-heuristica-fonts rawhide package!
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 apanov-heuristica-fonts
package:
SRPM RPM 17 19
apanov-heuristica-fonts apanov-heuristica-fonts 4 4
Total4 4
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
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the apanov-heuristica-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
apanov-heuristica-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the apanov-edrip-fonts rawhide package!
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 apanov-edrip-fonts package:
SRPMRPM 17
apanov-edrip-fonts apanov-edrip-fonts 4
Total 4
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 apanov-edrip-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
apanov-edrip-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the artwiz-aleczapka-fonts rawhide package!
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 artwiz-aleczapka-fonts package:
SRPMRPM 4 7 11 17 19
artwiz-aleczapka-fonts artwiz-aleczapka-fonts 48 3 48 48 48
Total 48 3 48 48 48
4. Fonts in packages that do not declare font metadata
☛ Font-specific rpm metadata is required for automatic font installation to
work. If you apply our font packaging templates, it will be generated at
package creation time.
7. Fonts that declare non-WWS compliant styles
☛ This WWS-like test checks if font styles use the “Width Weight Slant”
naming
convention¹. As noted by Adobe the CSS family model is less than ideal, but
it's a standard and applications expect it².
Since our applications do not workaround bad font naming with dynamic
renaming heuristics, achieving consistent style naming that can be used in
CSS/web oriented applications requires fixing face naming directly in the
font files. For this reason we test font style naming separately from font
family naming, and do not support complex weight abbreviations and
suffixes³.
To pass this test make sure your style names do not include any qualifier
not defined in the WWS whitepaper¹, and that “Width”, “Weight” or “Slant”
are defined only once. Any other qualifier belongs in the font family name.
If one your font files is listed here please ask its upstream to fix its
naming so it does not need further reprocessing. And in the meanwhile patch
it (if it is available in sfd form) or add a fontconfig rule to your
package to hide the problem⁴.
¹ http://blogs.msdn.com/text/attachment/2249036.ashx
http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/typotechnica2007/Font%20names.pdf
² http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/atypi2006/CSS%20%20OT%2015.pdf
³ As defined in the end of the WWS renaming algorithm described in the
Microsoft whitepaper.
⁴ cf the “fontpackages” remapping template; unfortunately this workaround
won't fix problems for non-fontconfig applications, or when
interoperating with other systems.
11. Packages that mix different font families
☛ Reliable font auto-installation requires shipping only one font family
per font package.
(If you've remapped some font names at the fontconfig level your package
may appear here pending some fontconfig fixes upstream is aware of).
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
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the artwiz-aleczapka-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
artwiz-aleczapka-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the bpg-fonts rawhide package!
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 bpg-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 6 17
bpg-fonts bpg-algeti-fonts‧ 1
bpg-fonts bpg-chveulebrivi-fonts ‧ 1
bpg-fonts bpg-courier-fonts ‧ 1
bpg-fonts bpg-courier-s-fonts ‧ 1
bpg-fonts bpg-elite-fonts ‧ 1
bpg-fonts bpg-excelsior-fonts ‧ 1
bpg-fonts bpg-glaho-fonts ‧ 1
bpg-fonts bpg-ingiri-fonts‧ 1
bpg-fonts bpg-nino-medium-cond-fonts 1 1
bpg-fonts bpg-nino-medium-fonts 1 1
bpg-fonts bpg-sans-fonts ‧ 1
bpg-fonts bpg-sans-medium-fonts 1 1
bpg-fonts bpg-sans-modern-fonts ‧ 1
bpg-fonts bpg-sans-regular-fonts 1 1
bpg-fonts bpg-serif-fonts ‧ 1
bpg-fonts bpg-serif-modern-fonts ‧ 1
Total 4 16
6. Fonts that declare style attributes in family names
☛ To be properly processed by applications face qualifiers need to be
declared in style names. Some application stacks such as Microsoft WPF will
try to workaround bad font naming with dynamic renaming heuristics¹, but
heuristics are brittle and pose interoperability problems with applications
that do not use them.
If one your font files is listed here please ask its upstream to fix its
naming so it respects WWS conventions and does not need further
reprocessing. And in the meanwhile patch it (if it is available in sfd
format) or add a fontconfig rule to your package to hide the problem².
There may be a few false positives in this test as some common face
qualifiers can be used with a different meaning in family names.
¹ http://blogs.msdn.com/text/attachment/2249036.ashx
http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/typotechnica2007/Font%20names.pdf
http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/atypi2006/CSS%20%20OT%2015.pdf
² cf the “fontpackages” remapping template; unfortunately this workaround
won't fix problems for non-fontconfig applications, or when interoperating
with other systems.
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 bpg-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
bpg-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the bitmap-fonts rawhide package!
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 bitmap-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 7 9 11 17 19
bitmap-fonts bitmap-cjk-fonts ‧ ‧ ‧ 2 2
bitmap-fonts bitmap-fonts 14 15 32 32 32
Total 14 15 32 34 34
7. Fonts that declare non-WWS compliant styles
☛ This WWS-like test checks if font styles use the “Width Weight Slant”
naming
convention¹. As noted by Adobe the CSS family model is less than ideal, but
it's a standard and applications expect it².
Since our applications do not workaround bad font naming with dynamic
renaming heuristics, achieving consistent style naming that can be used in
CSS/web oriented applications requires fixing face naming directly in the
font files. For this reason we test font style naming separately from font
family naming, and do not support complex weight abbreviations and
suffixes³.
To pass this test make sure your style names do not include any qualifier
not defined in the WWS whitepaper¹, and that “Width”, “Weight” or “Slant”
are defined only once. Any other qualifier belongs in the font family name.
If one your font files is listed here please ask its upstream to fix its
naming so it does not need further reprocessing. And in the meanwhile patch
it (if it is available in sfd form) or add a fontconfig rule to your
package to hide the problem⁴.
¹ http://blogs.msdn.com/text/attachment/2249036.ashx
http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/typotechnica2007/Font%20names.pdf
² http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/atypi2006/CSS%20%20OT%2015.pdf
³ As defined in the end of the WWS renaming algorithm described in the
Microsoft whitepaper.
⁴ cf the “fontpackages” remapping template; unfortunately this workaround
won't fix problems for non-fontconfig applications, or when
interoperating with other systems.
9. Font faces duplicated by different packages
☛ Face duplication wastes resources infrastructure and user side.
Very often an upstream that copied some fonts will forget to keep them up
to date, and the duplication will result in the distribution of old buggy
data. Even when some duplicated font faces are a genuine fork with
different features from the original, applications won't be able to select
them reliably because of naming collision.
We should always ship only one version of a font face in the repository,
and use fontconfig or symlinks to share it accross packages.
11. Packages that mix different font families
☛ Reliable font auto-installation requires shipping only one font family
per font package.
(If you've remapped some font names at the fontconfig level your package
may appear here pending some fontconfig fixes upstream is aware of).
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
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the bitmap-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
bitmap-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the beteckna-fonts rawhide package!
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 beteckna-fonts package:
SRPMRPM17 19
beteckna-fonts beteckna-fonts 1 1
beteckna-fonts beteckna-lower-case-fonts 4 4
beteckna-fonts beteckna-small-caps-fonts 1 1
Total 6 6
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
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the beteckna-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
beteckna-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the chisholm-to-be-continued-fonts rawhide package!
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 chisholm-to-be-continued-fonts
package:
SRPMRPM 17
chisholm-to-be-continued-fonts chisholm-to-be-continued-fonts 1
Total 1
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 chisholm-to-be-continued-fonts
package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
chisholm-to-be-continued-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the baekmuk-ttf-fonts rawhide package!
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 baekmuk-ttf-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 17 18 19
baekmuk-ttf-fonts baekmuk-ttf-batang-fonts 1 1 1
baekmuk-ttf-fonts baekmuk-ttf-dotum-fonts 1 1 1
baekmuk-ttf-fonts baekmuk-ttf-gulim-fonts 1 1 1
baekmuk-ttf-fonts baekmuk-ttf-hline-fonts 1 1 1
Total 4 4 4
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
18. Fonts with partial unicode block coverage
☛ Some font files included in the package are missing only a few glyphs to
fully cover an Unicode block. Therefore they could be made useful to more
people with only a little effort.
The Unicode consortium revises its tables regularly, and therefore a font
may need to be extended to maintain its full coverage when a new Unicode
revision is published¹.
To check a font file unicode coverage, run the ttfcoverage command. It only
works for modern SFNT fonts (.otf, .ttf).
¹ http://www.unicode.org/charts/
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the baekmuk-ttf-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
baekmuk-ttf-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the cf-bonveno-fonts rawhide package!
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 cf-bonveno-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 17
cf-bonveno-fonts cf-bonveno-fonts 1
Total 1
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 cf-bonveno-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
cf-bonveno-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the bitstream-vera-fonts rawhide package!
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 bitstream-vera-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 8 9 17 19
bitstream-vera-fonts bitstream-vera-sans-fonts 4 4 4 4
bitstream-vera-fonts bitstream-vera-sans-mono-fonts 4 4 4 4
bitstream-vera-fonts bitstream-vera-serif-fonts 2 2 2 2
Total 10 10 10 10
8. Exact font duplication
☛ Several packages duplicate font files with the same checksum. This
needlessly wastes resources.
9. Font faces duplicated by different packages
☛ Face duplication wastes resources infrastructure and user side.
Very often an upstream that copied some fonts will forget to keep them up
to date, and the duplication will result in the distribution of old buggy
data. Even when some duplicated font faces are a genuine fork with
different features from the original, applications won't be able to select
them reliably because of naming collision.
We should always ship only one version of a font face in the repository,
and use fontconfig or symlinks to share it accross packages.
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
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the bitstream-vera-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
bitstream-vera-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the brettfont-fonts rawhide package!
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 brettfont-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 17
brettfont-fonts brettfont-fonts 1
Total1
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 brettfont-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
brettfont-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the conakry-fonts rawhide package!
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 conakry-fonts package:
SRPM RPM17 18
conakry-fonts conakry-fonts 1 1
Total 1 1
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
18. Fonts with partial unicode block coverage
☛ Some font files included in the package are missing only a few glyphs to
fully cover an Unicode block. Therefore they could be made useful to more
people with only a little effort.
The Unicode consortium revises its tables regularly, and therefore a font
may need to be extended to maintain its full coverage when a new Unicode
revision is published¹.
To check a font file unicode coverage, run the ttfcoverage command. It only
works for modern SFNT fonts (.otf, .ttf).
¹ http://www.unicode.org/charts/
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the conakry-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
conakry-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the dejavu-fonts rawhide package!
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 dejavu-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 9 17 18 19
dejavu-fonts dejavu-lgc-sans-fonts ‧ 1 9 9
dejavu-fonts dejavu-lgc-sans-mono-fonts ‧ 4 ‧ ‧
dejavu-fonts dejavu-lgc-serif-fonts ‧ 8 ‧ 8
dejavu-fonts dejavu-sans-fonts 3 5 9 9
dejavu-fonts dejavu-sans-mono-fonts ‧ 4 2 2
dejavu-fonts dejavu-serif-fonts ‧ 8 ‧ 8
Total 3 30 20 36
9. Font faces duplicated by different packages
☛ Face duplication wastes resources infrastructure and user side.
Very often an upstream that copied some fonts will forget to keep them up
to date, and the duplication will result in the distribution of old buggy
data. Even when some duplicated font faces are a genuine fork with
different features from the original, applications won't be able to select
them reliably because of naming collision.
We should always ship only one version of a font face in the repository,
and use fontconfig or symlinks to share it accross packages.
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
18. Fonts with partial unicode block coverage
☛ Some font files included in the package are missing only a few glyphs to
fully cover an Unicode block. Therefore they could be made useful to more
people with only a little effort.
The Unicode consortium revises its tables regularly, and therefore a font
may need to be extended to maintain its full coverage when a new Unicode
revision is published¹.
To check a font file unicode coverage, run the ttfcoverage command. It only
works for modern SFNT fonts (.otf, .ttf).
¹ http://www.unicode.org/charts/
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the dejavu-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
dejavu-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the cjkuni-fonts rawhide package!
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 cjkuni-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 3 12 14 17 19
cjkuni-fonts cjkuni-fonts-compat ‧ 2 ‧ ‧ ‧
cjkuni-fonts cjkuni-ukai-fonts1 ‧ ‧ 1 1
cjkuni-fonts cjkuni-uming-fonts 1 ‧ 1 1 1
Total2 2 1 2 2
3. Fonts in packages that contain non-font data
☛ Please do not mix font files with non-font data in packages. Fonts are
usually useful outside of the package that deploys them and should be
installable without pulling in other material.
12. Font linking
☛ Symlinking is a way for non-font packages to avoid duplicating font files,
but it is also a symptom of missing or incomplete fontconfig support.
Fontconfig has been our default font system for a long time, and accessing
fonts by other means will cause behaviour inconsistencies and many other
problems (since fontconfig is much more than a file locating library)
Please ask the package upstream to add fontconfig support to their code
(possibly, via a higher-level library such as pango-cairo).
14. Fonts rpmlint errors on
☛ Check rpmlint output to fix those packages (using the -i flag if you
don't understand it).
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
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the cjkuni-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
cjkuni-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the chisholm-letterslaughing-fonts rawhide package!
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 chisholm-letterslaughing-fonts
package:
SRPMRPM 7 17
chisholm-letterslaughing-fonts chisholm-letterslaughing-fonts 3 3
Total 3 3
7. Fonts that declare non-WWS compliant styles
☛ This WWS-like test checks if font styles use the “Width Weight Slant”
naming
convention¹. As noted by Adobe the CSS family model is less than ideal, but
it's a standard and applications expect it².
Since our applications do not workaround bad font naming with dynamic
renaming heuristics, achieving consistent style naming that can be used in
CSS/web oriented applications requires fixing face naming directly in the
font files. For this reason we test font style naming separately from font
family naming, and do not support complex weight abbreviations and
suffixes³.
To pass this test make sure your style names do not include any qualifier
not defined in the WWS whitepaper¹, and that “Width”, “Weight” or “Slant”
are defined only once. Any other qualifier belongs in the font family name.
If one your font files is listed here please ask its upstream to fix its
naming so it does not need further reprocessing. And in the meanwhile patch
it (if it is available in sfd form) or add a fontconfig rule to your
package to hide the problem⁴.
¹ http://blogs.msdn.com/text/attachment/2249036.ashx
http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/typotechnica2007/Font%20names.pdf
² http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/atypi2006/CSS%20%20OT%2015.pdf
³ As defined in the end of the WWS renaming algorithm described in the
Microsoft whitepaper.
⁴ cf the “fontpackages” remapping template; unfortunately this workaround
won't fix problems for non-fontconfig applications, or when
interoperating with other systems.
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 chisholm-letterslaughing-fonts
package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
chisholm-letterslaughing-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-ambrosia-fonts rawhide package!
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 gfs-ambrosia-fonts package: SRPMRPM 19 gfs-ambrosia-fonts gfs-ambrosia-fonts 1 Total 1 19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks ☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time. You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users ¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-ambrosia-fonts package. I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran. Your friendly QA robot, -- repo-font-audit http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages gfs-ambrosia-fonts.tar.xz Description: application/xz-compressed-tar ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the dustin-dustismo-fonts rawhide package!
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 dustin-dustismo-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 17 18 19
dustin-dustismo-fonts dustin-dustismo-roman-fonts 4 ‧ ‧
dustin-dustismo-fonts dustin-dustismo-sans-fonts 4 4 4
Total8 4 4
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
18. Fonts with partial unicode block coverage
☛ Some font files included in the package are missing only a few glyphs to
fully cover an Unicode block. Therefore they could be made useful to more
people with only a little effort.
The Unicode consortium revises its tables regularly, and therefore a font
may need to be extended to maintain its full coverage when a new Unicode
revision is published¹.
To check a font file unicode coverage, run the ttfcoverage command. It only
works for modern SFNT fonts (.otf, .ttf).
¹ http://www.unicode.org/charts/
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the dustin-dustismo-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
dustin-dustismo-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the drehatlas-widelands-fonts rawhide package!
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 drehatlas-widelands-fonts
package:
SRPM RPM14 17 19
drehatlas-widelands-fonts drehatlas-widelands-fonts 1 1 1
Total 1 1 1
14. Fonts rpmlint errors on
☛ Check rpmlint output to fix those packages (using the -i flag if you
don't understand it).
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
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the drehatlas-widelands-fonts
package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
drehatlas-widelands-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-eustace-fonts rawhide package!
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 gfs-eustace-fonts package:
SRPM RPM17 19
gfs-eustace-fonts gfs-eustace-fonts 1 1
Total 1 1
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
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-eustace-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
gfs-eustace-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-ignacio-fonts rawhide package!
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 gfs-ignacio-fonts package:
SRPM RPM17 19
gfs-ignacio-fonts gfs-ignacio-fonts 1 1
Total 1 1
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
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-ignacio-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
gfs-ignacio-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-baskerville-fonts rawhide package!
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 gfs-baskerville-fonts package: SRPM RPM19 gfs-baskerville-fonts gfs-baskerville-fonts 1 Total 1 19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks ☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time. You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users ¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-baskerville-fonts package. I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran. Your friendly QA robot, -- repo-font-audit http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages gfs-baskerville-fonts.tar.xz Description: application/xz-compressed-tar ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-fleischman-fonts rawhide package!
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 gfs-fleischman-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 17 19
gfs-fleischman-fonts gfs-fleischman-fonts 1 1
Total 1 1
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
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-fleischman-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
gfs-fleischman-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the dustin-domestic-manners-fonts rawhide package!
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 dustin-domestic-manners-fonts
package:
SRPM RPM17
dustin-domestic-manners-fonts dustin-domestic-manners-fonts 1
Total 1
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 dustin-domestic-manners-fonts
package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
dustin-domestic-manners-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the fonts-KOI8-R rawhide package!
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 fonts-KOI8-R package: SRPM RPM 4516 19 fonts-KOI8-R fonts-KOI8-R 16 16 16 16 fonts-KOI8-R fonts-KOI8-R-100dpi 60 60 60 60 fonts-KOI8-R fonts-KOI8-R-75dpi 114 114 114 114 Total190 190 190 190 4. Fonts in packages that do not declare font metadata ☛ Font-specific rpm metadata is required for automatic font installation to work. If you apply our font packaging templates, it will be generated at package creation time. 5. Fonts in packages that do not respect font naming conventions ☛ Please respect font package naming conventions and provide consistent packages to users. Some scripts may depend on strict package naming. 16. Fonts fc-query can not parse ☛ fc-query could not parse some font files in the package. The files may be malformed and in need of fixing, or fc-query has a bug (in that case, please report the problem so it is fixed). Any font file rejected by fc-query will be useless in fontconfig and most applications. If it can not be fixed drop it. 19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks ☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time. You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users ¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html Please take the appropriate measures to fix the fonts-KOI8-R package. I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran. Your friendly QA robot, -- repo-font-audit http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages fonts-KOI8-R.tar.xz Description: application/xz-compressed-tar ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the efont-unicode-bdf rawhide package!
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 efont-unicode-bdf package:
SRPM RPM5 9 11 17 19
efont-unicode-bdf efont-unicode-bdf 60 45 60 60 60
Total 60 45 60 60 60
5. Fonts in packages that do not respect font naming conventions
☛ Please respect font package naming conventions and provide consistent
packages to users. Some scripts may depend on strict package naming.
9. Font faces duplicated by different packages
☛ Face duplication wastes resources infrastructure and user side.
Very often an upstream that copied some fonts will forget to keep them up
to date, and the duplication will result in the distribution of old buggy
data. Even when some duplicated font faces are a genuine fork with
different features from the original, applications won't be able to select
them reliably because of naming collision.
We should always ship only one version of a font face in the repository,
and use fontconfig or symlinks to share it accross packages.
11. Packages that mix different font families
☛ Reliable font auto-installation requires shipping only one font family
per font package.
(If you've remapped some font names at the fontconfig level your package
may appear here pending some fontconfig fixes upstream is aware of).
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
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the efont-unicode-bdf package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
efont-unicode-bdf.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the fonts-hebrew-fancy rawhide package!
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 fonts-hebrew-fancy package: SRPMRPM 4 5 11 19 fonts-hebrew-fancy fonts-hebrew-fancy 9 9 9 1 Total 9 9 9 1 4. Fonts in packages that do not declare font metadata ☛ Font-specific rpm metadata is required for automatic font installation to work. If you apply our font packaging templates, it will be generated at package creation time. 5. Fonts in packages that do not respect font naming conventions ☛ Please respect font package naming conventions and provide consistent packages to users. Some scripts may depend on strict package naming. 11. Packages that mix different font families ☛ Reliable font auto-installation requires shipping only one font family per font package. (If you've remapped some font names at the fontconfig level your package may appear here pending some fontconfig fixes upstream is aware of). 19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks ☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time. You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users ¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html Please take the appropriate measures to fix the fonts-hebrew-fancy package. I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran. Your friendly QA robot, -- repo-font-audit http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages fonts-hebrew-fancy.tar.xz Description: application/xz-compressed-tar ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the apa-new-athena-unicode-fonts rawhide package!
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 apa-new-athena-unicode-fonts
package:
SRPM RPM 17 18
apa-new-athena-unicode-fonts apa-new-athena-unicode-fonts 1 1
Total 1 1
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
18. Fonts with partial unicode block coverage
☛ Some font files included in the package are missing only a few glyphs to
fully cover an Unicode block. Therefore they could be made useful to more
people with only a little effort.
The Unicode consortium revises its tables regularly, and therefore a font
may need to be extended to maintain its full coverage when a new Unicode
revision is published¹.
To check a font file unicode coverage, run the ttfcoverage command. It only
works for modern SFNT fonts (.otf, .ttf).
¹ http://www.unicode.org/charts/
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the apa-new-athena-unicode-fonts
package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
apa-new-athena-unicode-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the drehatlas-warender-bibliothek-fonts rawhide package!
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
drehatlas-warender-bibliothek-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 17 19
drehatlas-warender-bibliothek-fonts drehatlas-warender-bibliothek-fonts 1 1
Total1 1
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
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the
drehatlas-warender-bibliothek-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
drehatlas-warender-bibliothek-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-complutum-fonts rawhide package!
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 gfs-complutum-fonts package: SRPM RPM 19 gfs-complutum-fonts gfs-complutum-fonts 1 Total1 19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks ☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time. You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users ¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-complutum-fonts package. I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran. Your friendly QA robot, -- repo-font-audit http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages gfs-complutum-fonts.tar.xz Description: application/xz-compressed-tar ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-didot-classic-fonts rawhide package!
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 gfs-didot-classic-fonts package: SRPM RPM 19 gfs-didot-classic-fonts gfs-didot-classic-fonts 1 Total1 19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks ☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time. You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users ¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-didot-classic-fonts package. I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran. Your friendly QA robot, -- repo-font-audit http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages gfs-didot-classic-fonts.tar.xz Description: application/xz-compressed-tar ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the ctan-musixtex-fonts rawhide package!
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 ctan-musixtex-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 11 17 19
ctan-musixtex-fonts ctan-musixtex-fonts 71 60 70
Total71 60 70
11. Packages that mix different font families
☛ Reliable font auto-installation requires shipping only one font family
per font package.
(If you've remapped some font names at the fontconfig level your package
may appear here pending some fontconfig fixes upstream is aware of).
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
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the ctan-musixtex-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
ctan-musixtex-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gargi-fonts rawhide package!
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 gargi-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 17 19
gargi-fonts gargi-fonts 1 1
Total1 1
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
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gargi-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
gargi-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-gazis-fonts rawhide package!
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 gfs-gazis-fonts package: SRPM RPM 19 gfs-gazis-fonts gfs-gazis-fonts 1 Total1 19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks ☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time. You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users ¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-gazis-fonts package. I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran. Your friendly QA robot, -- repo-font-audit http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages gfs-gazis-fonts.tar.xz Description: application/xz-compressed-tar ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-jackson-fonts rawhide package!
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 gfs-jackson-fonts package:
SRPM RPM17 19
gfs-jackson-fonts gfs-jackson-fonts 1 1
Total 1 1
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
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-jackson-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
gfs-jackson-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the adf-tribun-fonts rawhide package!
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 adf-tribun-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 6 11 17 19
adf-tribun-fonts adf-tribun-fonts 4 12 12 12
Total 4 12 12 12
6. Fonts that declare style attributes in family names
☛ To be properly processed by applications face qualifiers need to be
declared in style names. Some application stacks such as Microsoft WPF will
try to workaround bad font naming with dynamic renaming heuristics¹, but
heuristics are brittle and pose interoperability problems with applications
that do not use them.
If one your font files is listed here please ask its upstream to fix its
naming so it respects WWS conventions and does not need further
reprocessing. And in the meanwhile patch it (if it is available in sfd
format) or add a fontconfig rule to your package to hide the problem².
There may be a few false positives in this test as some common face
qualifiers can be used with a different meaning in family names.
¹ http://blogs.msdn.com/text/attachment/2249036.ashx
http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/typotechnica2007/Font%20names.pdf
http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/atypi2006/CSS%20%20OT%2015.pdf
² cf the “fontpackages” remapping template; unfortunately this workaround
won't fix problems for non-fontconfig applications, or when interoperating
with other systems.
11. Packages that mix different font families
☛ Reliable font auto-installation requires shipping only one font family
per font package.
(If you've remapped some font names at the fontconfig level your package
may appear here pending some fontconfig fixes upstream is aware of).
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
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the adf-tribun-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
adf-tribun-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-theokritos-fonts rawhide package!
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 gfs-theokritos-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 17 20
gfs-theokritos-fonts gfs-theokritos-fonts 1 1
Total 1 1
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
20. Fonts with localized metadata but no English variant
☛ Some font files in the package declare localized metadata, but do not
include an English variant. They need to be fixed to also declare metadata
in English.
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-theokritos-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
gfs-theokritos-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-artemisia-fonts rawhide package!
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 gfs-artemisia-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 17 18 19
gfs-artemisia-fonts gfs-artemisia-fonts 4 4 4
Total4 4 4
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
18. Fonts with partial unicode block coverage
☛ Some font files included in the package are missing only a few glyphs to
fully cover an Unicode block. Therefore they could be made useful to more
people with only a little effort.
The Unicode consortium revises its tables regularly, and therefore a font
may need to be extended to maintain its full coverage when a new Unicode
revision is published¹.
To check a font file unicode coverage, run the ttfcoverage command. It only
works for modern SFNT fonts (.otf, .ttf).
¹ http://www.unicode.org/charts/
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-artemisia-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
gfs-artemisia-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-didot-fonts rawhide package!
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 gfs-didot-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 17 18 19
gfs-didot-fonts gfs-didot-fonts 4 4 4
Total4 4 4
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
18. Fonts with partial unicode block coverage
☛ Some font files included in the package are missing only a few glyphs to
fully cover an Unicode block. Therefore they could be made useful to more
people with only a little effort.
The Unicode consortium revises its tables regularly, and therefore a font
may need to be extended to maintain its full coverage when a new Unicode
revision is published¹.
To check a font file unicode coverage, run the ttfcoverage command. It only
works for modern SFNT fonts (.otf, .ttf).
¹ http://www.unicode.org/charts/
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-didot-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
gfs-didot-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-bodoni-fonts rawhide package!
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 gfs-bodoni-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 17 18 19
gfs-bodoni-fonts gfs-bodoni-fonts 4 4 4
Total 4 4 4
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
18. Fonts with partial unicode block coverage
☛ Some font files included in the package are missing only a few glyphs to
fully cover an Unicode block. Therefore they could be made useful to more
people with only a little effort.
The Unicode consortium revises its tables regularly, and therefore a font
may need to be extended to maintain its full coverage when a new Unicode
revision is published¹.
To check a font file unicode coverage, run the ttfcoverage command. It only
works for modern SFNT fonts (.otf, .ttf).
¹ http://www.unicode.org/charts/
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-bodoni-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
gfs-bodoni-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-porson-fonts rawhide package!
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 gfs-porson-fonts package: SRPM RPM 19 gfs-porson-fonts gfs-porson-fonts 1 Total 1 19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks ☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time. You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users ¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-porson-fonts package. I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran. Your friendly QA robot, -- repo-font-audit http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages gfs-porson-fonts.tar.xz Description: application/xz-compressed-tar ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-neohellenic-fonts rawhide package!
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 gfs-neohellenic-fonts package:
SRPM RPM17 18 19
gfs-neohellenic-fonts gfs-neohellenic-fonts 4 4 4
Total 4 4 4
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
18. Fonts with partial unicode block coverage
☛ Some font files included in the package are missing only a few glyphs to
fully cover an Unicode block. Therefore they could be made useful to more
people with only a little effort.
The Unicode consortium revises its tables regularly, and therefore a font
may need to be extended to maintain its full coverage when a new Unicode
revision is published¹.
To check a font file unicode coverage, run the ttfcoverage command. It only
works for modern SFNT fonts (.otf, .ttf).
¹ http://www.unicode.org/charts/
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-neohellenic-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
gfs-neohellenic-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-olga-fonts rawhide package!
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 gfs-olga-fonts package: SRPMRPM 19 gfs-olga-fonts gfs-olga-fonts 1 Total 1 19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks ☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time. You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users ¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-olga-fonts package. I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran. Your friendly QA robot, -- repo-font-audit http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages gfs-olga-fonts.tar.xz Description: application/xz-compressed-tar ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-decker-fonts rawhide package!
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 gfs-decker-fonts package: SRPM RPM 19 gfs-decker-fonts gfs-decker-fonts 1 Total 1 19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks ☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time. You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users ¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-decker-fonts package. I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran. Your friendly QA robot, -- repo-font-audit http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages gfs-decker-fonts.tar.xz Description: application/xz-compressed-tar ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-pyrsos-fonts rawhide package!
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 gfs-pyrsos-fonts package: SRPM RPM 19 gfs-pyrsos-fonts gfs-pyrsos-fonts 1 Total 1 19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks ☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time. You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users ¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-pyrsos-fonts package. I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran. Your friendly QA robot, -- repo-font-audit http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages gfs-pyrsos-fonts.tar.xz Description: application/xz-compressed-tar ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-solomos-fonts rawhide package!
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 gfs-solomos-fonts package: SRPM RPM19 gfs-solomos-fonts gfs-solomos-fonts 1 Total 1 19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks ☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time. You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users ¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-solomos-fonts package. I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran. Your friendly QA robot, -- repo-font-audit http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages gfs-solomos-fonts.tar.xz Description: application/xz-compressed-tar ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-nicefore-fonts rawhide package!
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 gfs-nicefore-fonts package:
SRPMRPM 17 19
gfs-nicefore-fonts gfs-nicefore-fonts 1 1
Total 1 1
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
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-nicefore-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
gfs-nicefore-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the hartke-aurulent-sans-fonts rawhide package!
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 hartke-aurulent-sans-fonts
package:
SRPMRPM 7 17 19
hartke-aurulent-sans-fonts hartke-aurulent-sans-fonts 1 4 4
hartke-aurulent-sans-fonts hartke-aurulent-sans-mono-fonts ‧ 1 1
Total1 5 5
7. Fonts that declare non-WWS compliant styles
☛ This WWS-like test checks if font styles use the “Width Weight Slant”
naming
convention¹. As noted by Adobe the CSS family model is less than ideal, but
it's a standard and applications expect it².
Since our applications do not workaround bad font naming with dynamic
renaming heuristics, achieving consistent style naming that can be used in
CSS/web oriented applications requires fixing face naming directly in the
font files. For this reason we test font style naming separately from font
family naming, and do not support complex weight abbreviations and
suffixes³.
To pass this test make sure your style names do not include any qualifier
not defined in the WWS whitepaper¹, and that “Width”, “Weight” or “Slant”
are defined only once. Any other qualifier belongs in the font family name.
If one your font files is listed here please ask its upstream to fix its
naming so it does not need further reprocessing. And in the meanwhile patch
it (if it is available in sfd form) or add a fontconfig rule to your
package to hide the problem⁴.
¹ http://blogs.msdn.com/text/attachment/2249036.ashx
http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/typotechnica2007/Font%20names.pdf
² http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/atypi2006/CSS%20%20OT%2015.pdf
³ As defined in the end of the WWS renaming algorithm described in the
Microsoft whitepaper.
⁴ cf the “fontpackages” remapping template; unfortunately this workaround
won't fix problems for non-fontconfig applications, or when
interoperating with other systems.
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
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the hartke-aurulent-sans-fonts
package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
hartke-aurulent-sans-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-philostratos-fonts rawhide package!
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 gfs-philostratos-fonts package:
SRPMRPM 17 19
gfs-philostratos-fonts gfs-philostratos-fonts 1 1
Total 1 1
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
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-philostratos-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
gfs-philostratos-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the ipa-mincho-fonts rawhide package!
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 ipa-mincho-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 17 18 19
ipa-mincho-fonts ipa-mincho-fonts 1 1 1
Total 1 1 1
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
18. Fonts with partial unicode block coverage
☛ Some font files included in the package are missing only a few glyphs to
fully cover an Unicode block. Therefore they could be made useful to more
people with only a little effort.
The Unicode consortium revises its tables regularly, and therefore a font
may need to be extended to maintain its full coverage when a new Unicode
revision is published¹.
To check a font file unicode coverage, run the ttfcoverage command. It only
works for modern SFNT fonts (.otf, .ttf).
¹ http://www.unicode.org/charts/
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the ipa-mincho-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
ipa-mincho-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the ipa-gothic-fonts rawhide package!
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 ipa-gothic-fonts package:
SRPM RPM 17 18 19
ipa-gothic-fonts ipa-gothic-fonts 1 1 1
Total 1 1 1
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
18. Fonts with partial unicode block coverage
☛ Some font files included in the package are missing only a few glyphs to
fully cover an Unicode block. Therefore they could be made useful to more
people with only a little effort.
The Unicode consortium revises its tables regularly, and therefore a font
may need to be extended to maintain its full coverage when a new Unicode
revision is published¹.
To check a font file unicode coverage, run the ttfcoverage command. It only
works for modern SFNT fonts (.otf, .ttf).
¹ http://www.unicode.org/charts/
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the ipa-gothic-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
ipa-gothic-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the ghostscript-fonts rawhide package!
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 ghostscript-fonts package:
SRPM RPM4 6 8 9 11 17 19
ghostscript-fonts ghostscript-fonts 17 2 4 8 17 17 17
Total 17 2 4 8 17 17 17
4. Fonts in packages that do not declare font metadata
☛ Font-specific rpm metadata is required for automatic font installation to
work. If you apply our font packaging templates, it will be generated at
package creation time.
6. Fonts that declare style attributes in family names
☛ To be properly processed by applications face qualifiers need to be
declared in style names. Some application stacks such as Microsoft WPF will
try to workaround bad font naming with dynamic renaming heuristics¹, but
heuristics are brittle and pose interoperability problems with applications
that do not use them.
If one your font files is listed here please ask its upstream to fix its
naming so it respects WWS conventions and does not need further
reprocessing. And in the meanwhile patch it (if it is available in sfd
format) or add a fontconfig rule to your package to hide the problem².
There may be a few false positives in this test as some common face
qualifiers can be used with a different meaning in family names.
¹ http://blogs.msdn.com/text/attachment/2249036.ashx
http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/typotechnica2007/Font%20names.pdf
http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/atypi2006/CSS%20%20OT%2015.pdf
² cf the “fontpackages” remapping template; unfortunately this workaround
won't fix problems for non-fontconfig applications, or when interoperating
with other systems.
8. Exact font duplication
☛ Several packages duplicate font files with the same checksum. This
needlessly wastes resources.
9. Font faces duplicated by different packages
☛ Face duplication wastes resources infrastructure and user side.
Very often an upstream that copied some fonts will forget to keep them up
to date, and the duplication will result in the distribution of old buggy
data. Even when some duplicated font faces are a genuine fork with
different features from the original, applications won't be able to select
them reliably because of naming collision.
We should always ship only one version of a font face in the repository,
and use fontconfig or symlinks to share it accross packages.
11. Packages that mix different font families
☛ Reliable font auto-installation requires shipping only one font family
per font package.
(If you've remapped some font names at the fontconfig level your package
may appear here pending some fontconfig fixes upstream is aware of).
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
19. Fonts that do not pass fontlint sanity checks
☛ Fontforge's fontlint¹ test suite found problems in some files included in
the package. Those problems may not be obvious and only manifest as strange
behaviour in specific applications (making them hard to debug). For that
reason it is recommanded to report those problems upstream and get them
fixed, even if the font file seems to work fine most of the time.
You can ask help about specific fontlint errors on:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fontforge-users
¹ http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/fontlint.html
Please take the appropriate measures to fix the ghostscript-fonts package.
I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran.
Your friendly QA robot,
--
repo-font-audit
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
ghostscript-fonts.tar.xz
Description: application/xz-compressed-tar
___
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
New fontpackages releases
Dear all, I've pushed two fontpackages releases lately. 1.28 This version is the product of a major refactoring of repo-font audit to make it generally useful to the individual font packager. You can use it on a local yum repo to QA your own packages before publishing them more widely. It is also able to generate maintainer nagmails. However, no new tests were added in this version. 1.28 is considered very stable and has been pushed to F-11. As a side-effect, that means fontpackages-devel in F-11 is now up-to-date regarding all the fontconfig templates written in the past 8 months (last fontpackages pushed to F-11 was 1.20). 1.29 This version adds fontconfig script coverage and unicode block coverage tests to repo-font-audit (any package that contains a font file that needs less than 10 glyphs to cover a new script or block will be flagged). Interestingly many fonts fail the script coverage test while passing the unicode block one, which seems to imply most font authors are not aware they're only missing a few glyphs to cover more scripts, and be useful in more regions. Please relay those failures upstream. 1.29 also adds fontlint to the test list. Since fontlint is very strict and would reject pretty much every font in Fedora if left alone, I've used the highly scientific method of filtering out the most common errors to limit the test failures (on the grounds that if a large number of fonts do the same mistakes, apps had to learn how to cope with it). If I should filter something else, feel free to argue your case on the list. I'm not 100% sure my filtering is perfect, just that it's good enough for a first try. Those three new tests will flag many more font files than previously, so expect new error reports. The coverage tests should be pretty solid. I'm less sure about fontlint. However, since after filtering fonts fail fontlint for many different reasons, I'm afraid those are real bugs and reflect poor FLOSS font QA (SIL fonts pass fontlint with colors, so it is achievable). 1.29 has been pushed to F-12 and devel. It will be used in the next rawhide test run (probably by the end of the month). -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Problems detected in the gfs-theokritos-fonts package!
Dear packager, At 20091018T220923Z, while scanning the test repository located at: file:///tmp/test … I have identified the following problems in your gfs-theokritos-fonts package: SRPM RPM 17 gfs-theokritos-fonts gfs-theokritos-fonts 1 Total 1 17. Packages with localized metadata but no English variant ☛ Some font files in the package declare localized metadata, but do not include an English variant. They need to be fixed to also declare metadata in English. Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-theokritos-fonts package. I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran. Your friendly QA robot, -- repo-font-audit (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages) gfs-theokritos-fonts.tar.xz Description: application/xz ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the dejavu-fonts package!
Dear packager, At 20091018T220923Z, while scanning the test repository located at: file:///tmp/test … I have identified the following problems in your dejavu-fonts package: SRPM RPM 10 dejavu-fonts dejavu-lgc-serif-fonts 2 dejavu-fonts dejavu-serif-fonts 2 Total 4 10. Font faces duplicated within a package ☛ Face duplication within a package is almost certainly a bug, except for special symbol font families. Fonts that were split because of the limitations of legacy font formats (PCF, Type 1…) should be converted to modern OpenType (TT, CFF or bitmap) containers. Please take the appropriate measures to fix the dejavu-fonts package. I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran. Your friendly QA robot, -- repo-font-audit (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages) dejavu-fonts.tar.xz Description: application/xz ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-theokritos-fonts package!
Dear packager, At 20091018T220923Z, while scanning the test repository located at: file:///tmp/test … I have identified the following problems in your gfs-theokritos-fonts package: SRPM RPM 17 gfs-theokritos-fonts gfs-theokritos-fonts 1 Total 1 17. Packages with localized metadata but no English variant ☛ Some font files in the package declare localized metadata, but do not include an English variant. They need to be fixed to also declare metadata in English. Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-theokritos-fonts package. I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran. Your friendly QA robot, -- repo-font-audit (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages) gfs-theokritos-fonts.tar.xz Description: application/xz ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the dejavu-fonts package!
Dear packager, At 20091018T220923Z, while scanning the test repository located at: file:///tmp/test … I have identified the following problems in your dejavu-fonts package: SRPM RPM 10 dejavu-fonts dejavu-lgc-serif-fonts 2 dejavu-fonts dejavu-serif-fonts 2 Total 4 10. Font faces duplicated within a package ☛ Face duplication within a package is almost certainly a bug, except for special symbol font families. Fonts that were split because of the limitations of legacy font formats (PCF, Type 1…) should be converted to modern OpenType (TT, CFF or bitmap) containers. Please take the appropriate measures to fix the dejavu-fonts package. I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran. Your friendly QA robot, -- repo-font-audit (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages) dejavu-fonts.tar.xz Description: application/xz ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the dejavu-fonts package!
Dear packager, At 20091018T220923Z, while scanning the test repository located at: file:///tmp/test … I have identified the following problems in your dejavu-fonts package: SRPM RPM 10 dejavu-fonts dejavu-lgc-serif-fonts 2 dejavu-fonts dejavu-serif-fonts 2 Total 4 10. Font faces duplicated within a package ☛ Face duplication within a package is almost certainly a bug, except for special symbol font families. Fonts that were split because of the limitations of legacy font formats (PCF, Type 1…) should be converted to modern OpenType (TT, CFF or bitmap) containers. Please take the appropriate measures to fix the dejavu-fonts package. I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran. Your friendly QA robot, -- repo-font-audit (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages) dejavu-fonts.tar.xz Description: application/xz ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-theokritos-fonts package!
Dear packager, At 20091018T220923Z, while scanning the test repository located at: file:///tmp/test … I have identified the following problems in your gfs-theokritos-fonts package: SRPM RPM 17 gfs-theokritos-fonts gfs-theokritos-fonts 1 Total 1 17. Packages with localized metadata but no English variant ☛ Some font files in the package declare localized metadata, but do not include an English variant. They need to be fixed to also declare metadata in English. Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-theokritos-fonts package. I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran. Your friendly QA robot, -- repo-font-audit (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages) gfs-theokritos-fonts.tar.xz Description: application/xz ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-theokritos-fonts package!
Dear packager, At 20091018T220923Z, while scanning the test repository located at: file:///tmp/test … I have identified the following problems in your gfs-theokritos-fonts package: SRPM RPM 17 gfs-theokritos-fonts gfs-theokritos-fonts 1 Total 1 17. Packages with localized metadata but no English variant ☛ Some font files in the package declare localized metadata, but do not include an English variant. They need to be fixed to also declare metadata in English. Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-theokritos-fonts package. I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran. Your friendly QA robot, -- repo-font-audit (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages) gfs-theokritos-fonts.tar.xz Description: application/xz ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the dejavu-fonts package!
Dear packager, At 20091018T220923Z, while scanning the test repository located at: file:///tmp/test … I have identified the following problems in your dejavu-fonts package: SRPM RPM 10 dejavu-fonts dejavu-lgc-serif-fonts 2 dejavu-fonts dejavu-serif-fonts 2 Total 4 10. Font faces duplicated within a package ☛ Face duplication within a package is almost certainly a bug, except for special symbol font families. Fonts that were split because of the limitations of legacy font formats (PCF, Type 1…) should be converted to modern OpenType (TT, CFF or bitmap) containers. Please take the appropriate measures to fix the dejavu-fonts package. I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran. Your friendly QA robot, -- repo-font-audit (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages) dejavu-fonts.tar.xz Description: application/xz ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the gfs-theokritos-fonts package!
Dear packager, At 20091018T220923Z, while scanning the test repository located at: file:///tmp/test … I have identified the following problems in your gfs-theokritos-fonts package: SRPM RPM 17 gfs-theokritos-fonts gfs-theokritos-fonts 1 Total 1 17. Packages with localized metadata but no English variant ☛ Some font files in the package declare localized metadata, but do not include an English variant. They need to be fixed to also declare metadata in English. Please take the appropriate measures to fix the gfs-theokritos-fonts package. I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran. Your friendly QA robot, -- repo-font-audit (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages) gfs-theokritos-fonts.tar.xz Description: Binary data ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Problems detected in the dejavu-fonts package!
Dear packager, At 20091018T220923Z, while scanning the test repository located at: file:///tmp/test … I have identified the following problems in your dejavu-fonts package: SRPM RPM 10 dejavu-fonts dejavu-lgc-serif-fonts 2 dejavu-fonts dejavu-serif-fonts 2 Total 4 10. Font faces duplicated within a package ☛ Face duplication within a package is almost certainly a bug, except for special symbol font families. Fonts that were split because of the limitations of legacy font formats (PCF, Type 1…) should be converted to modern OpenType (TT, CFF or bitmap) containers. Please take the appropriate measures to fix the dejavu-fonts package. I will warn you again if I find problems next time I am ran. Your friendly QA robot, -- repo-font-audit (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages) dejavu-fonts.tar.xz Description: Binary data ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
Re: Font package review request for AnonymousPro
Le Jeu 15 octobre 2009 15:21, Robin Sonefors a écrit : After reading Mairin's Unpackaged Font of the Week post yesterday, I decided to try packaging it. Great decision! Welcome! The result is a review request at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529196 I've never done RPM packages before, so realistically there should be some mistakes. I'd be thankful for having those pointed out to me. Note that if you're not already a packager, the process will involve getting packager access. I can authorize you, but not based on a single package submission. So you probably want to identify another unpackaged font you like and start packaging it too. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: fonts.dir and fonts.scale
Le Mer 14 octobre 2009 21:00, ro...@br.ibm.com a écrit : Hi, Hi Rodrigo, I have read the policies pages and I am a bit confused with the lot of information there. They've already been simplified for F-11, but if you have ideas on how to improve them, they'll be very welcome. I split the package in 3 new ones (simple) for each font family and gave the proper names. My doubt is: the old package creates the files fonts.dir and fonts.scale during package installation (%post) using 'ttmkfdir' and 'mkfontdir' . Can someone tell me if this files are still necessary in Fedora12 or 11 ? Should I create them ? fonts.dir and fonts.scale are used by the old X11 core font backend. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy#Core_fonts It's been deprecated in favour of client-side font management (fontconfig) for about 7 years (replacing the X11 core font backend with fontconfig could probably be considered the first step that lead to modern modularized xorg). Nowadays almost nothing important uses the X11 core font backend in Fedora (even emacs finally switched and emacs is not exactly an agile project) That being said many proprietary or niche software packages still use the old system because they either do not care a lot about i18n, or about Linux, or want code that works the same way on antique 'classic' Unix systems (less-antique Unix systems use fontconfig just as Linux as every single major GUI package requires it nowadays). If you want to expose your fonts in the core font system you'll need to include fonts.* and symlink the directory you deploy your fonts in to /etc/X11/fontpath.d/ (note that software that still uses the old font system is likely to go bang if you feed it a modern font). Fedora-side, we're not encouraging people to register new fonts in the core font system. We're keeping just enough old core fonts to make old apps happy (and don't install them by default anymore, so people who depend on them have to request them explicitely, and not continue to ignore the software landscape has changed) I hope this is somewhat clearer. -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: EPEL support
Le Mar 6 octobre 2009 22:28, Michel Alexandre Salim a écrit : Hello, Hi Is there a reason fontpackages is not available on EPEL (both EL-4 and EL-5)? I don't currently have my CentOS virtual machine set up (VirtualBox is a bit annoying to set up on Rawhide), otherwise I would have tested this myself. The only reason is that I do not have the time (or interest) to do EPEL. You are welcome to take any of my Fedora packages and push it EPEL-side. Please note however that the spec templates in fontpackages use every trick Fedora rpm supports to be as simple as possible, so if you want to epel-ize them you need to patch in cruft older rpm versions need. (also I don't remember what ancient version of fontconfig is in RHEL4, if it's too old is may be that adapting fontpackages to it is too much work to be worth it at all) -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: Self-introduction, and review request
Le Jeu 1 octobre 2009 03:34, Michel Alexandre Salim a écrit : Hello all, […] Review Request: openfontlibrary-smonohand-font - A handwritten monospace font And the package has now passed review. Thank you for stopping here! -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: New font package review request for Sheherazade SIL font
Le Lun 28 septembre 2009 17:25, Hedayat Vatankhah a écrit : Hi all, I've created a new font package request at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=526058 Any comments and/or suggestions are highly appreciated. Notice that this is my first font package :) And this one is now approved, I hope its was less painful than you feared. And BTW, we have a few other SIL unicode fonts on the wishlist, now you've done one it should not be too difficult to do others (but just packaging one font is fine too) Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: bitmap-fonts by default?
Le Mer 30 septembre 2009 16:35, Qianqian Fang a écrit : Jens Petersen wrote: We have been looking at updating bitmap-fonts recently, and noticed that it is still listed mandatory in the comps @base-x group. So I just wondered a couple of naive questions: - does bitmap-fonts have to be installed by default? - what actually needs it? anything before X may still need bitmap fonts, don't they? The problem is, we have a lot of stuff installed by default in base-x because something may use it (even though no one actually checked that was still the case). IMHO default packages in default groups should have a clear user, or be downgraded to optional. -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: Heuristica metadata problem
Le Dim 13 septembre 2009 17:56, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit : Hi, While reviewing the output of the automated tests we run on our packages, I noticed Heuristica Bold Italic trips our metadata sanity test because it declares “BoldItalic” (no space) instead of the modern “Bold Italic” (space). BTW Edrip has the same problem -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: can Libertine fonts be embedded in non-gpl application?
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 12:40 PM, nicolas.mail...@gmail.com wrote: Well none of us are lawyers here, and you should not rely on anything written on a public mailing list when there is a risk of a trial. And when the wording of a license is unclear, there is definitely one. If I had to embed a font in an application I certainly wouldn't start with a GPL font but look at Droid or another font with lax licensing (though the licensing would need to be double-checked too). I thought about Droid, but it talks about using OpenType features and I was planning on using freetype. So, I'm open to using Droid, with its OFL license, but I'm not sure if it would render correctly using just freetype. Any half-decent font will use opentype features nowadays, and you will need a shaper (like pango-cairo) to render it correctly, freetype won't be enough. That's the case for Droid, DejaVu, Libertine, Liberation, etc Also Droid is not OFL, it uses the Apache 2 license That, or ask the author of the font I selected for an explicit authorization. That's kind of what led me here. AFAIK Redhat is the license holder for the font. You're confusing Libertine with Liberation. Those are two different fonts, with different upstreams, and different licensing I don't know who to contact at Redhat about this question. For legal queries in a community/Fedora context, you need to ask Tom Callaway who will relay wherever is appropriate -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: can Libertine fonts be embedded in non-gpl application?
Well none of us are lawyers here, and you should not rely on anything written on a public mailing list when there is a risk of a trial. And when the wording of a license is unclear, there is definitely one. If I had to embed a font in an application I certainly wouldn't start with a GPL font but look at Droid or another font with lax licensing (though the licensing would need to be double-checked too). That, or ask the author of the font I selected for an explicit authorization. (BTW I sure hope no one is going to try the embedding trick in any app Fedora ships, it's enough of a legal pain with detached files) -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: restricted mailing list
It wasn't obvious to me after reading the Fedora-fonts-list Info Page that list subscription was necessary in order to post a message to the list. It would be helpful if there was a statement saying that this was necessary here: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list I changed this page, thank you for the feedback. I'd be delighted BTW if there was a way to mass authorize anyone with a FAS account, but opening the list to everyone would just turn it on a pile of spam. Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Heuristica metadata problem
Hi, While reviewing the output of the automated tests we run on our packages, I noticed Heuristica Bold Italic trips our metadata sanity test because it declares “BoldItalic” (no space) instead of the modern “Bold Italic” (space). https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-fonts-list/2009-September/msg5.html (I know the report is not very easy to read because there is a lot of problem fonts to fix) Can you make Heuristica leave this report please? Thanks, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: Rawhide fonts problem report for 2009-07-20
Le lundi 20 juillet 2009 à 10:03 -0400, Qianqian Fang a écrit : Nicolas Mailhot wrote: ☛ Mid-term, files in legacy PCF or Type1 formats need to be converted or removed. just curious, for PCF, what format you plan to convert to ? Can I just dream bitmap fonts will go away ? Otherwise, it would be awesome if one of the 2-3 ways to create Opentype bitmap fonts actually worked - I had tried SFNT TTF/OTF, neither of them works with the current fontconfig (cache file could not be generated). Please open bugs upstream so Behdad can fix support for SFNT bitmap fonts -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: Rawhide fonts problem report for 2009-07-20
Le lundi 20 juillet 2009 à 13:41 -0400, Qianqian Fang a écrit : Getting opentype bitmap/sfnt wrapper to work for bitmaps is definitely the way to go: it not only saves more than half of the space, but also makes rendering a lot faster. The only concern is the support to GTK1 applications which reply on the legacy X font settings. Well GTK1 passed in WE_DON'T_CARE land a long time ago. It never even supported UTF-8 in a satisfactory way, IIRC -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: ttf2eot needs to be packaged to allow Fedora to make cross-browser embedded-font websites
Le mercredi 15 juillet 2009 à 13:58 -0700, Schlaegel a écrit : Now that Firefox finally has embedded font support, even though the current version in Fedora 11 segfaults (Bug 509501), web developers will want to create websites using embedded fonts. To get these embedded fonts to display in IE, the ttf files will need to be converted to eot files. On Fedora, to convert ttf files into eot files one would need ttf2eot. Lets package ttf2eot to let the web developers use Fedora. I'm not fond of the @font-face idea, and even less about ie-only eot, but if someone wants to work on ttf2eot, and can pass it through legal, why not. I guess it could be filed in the interop with Microsoft section. -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Use of OTF extention for OpenDocument Formula Template
Hi, OASIS specified OTF as extension for OpenDocument Formula Template documents. This is very unfortunate since OTF is already widely used to identify OpenType CFF fonts. OpenType CFF is, with OpenType TT, one of the two current major modern font formats and new OpenType fonts are published all the time. Since Office documents make extensive use of fonts, collision on user systems is almost guaranteed. http://www.microsoft.com/typography/otspec/otff.htm OpenType CFF was here first, has massive usage, and is unlikely to go away in the short term. Therefore, the OpenDocument Formula Template extension should be changed to something less ambiguous. http://www.fileinfo.com/extension/otf Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_SIG signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: [OpenFontLibrary] Fwd: LUG-boards: URW++ original 35 fonts available under LPPL
Hi,
While it's always nice to have another confirmation URW+ is OK with
those fonts being released, this is not the version of the fonts GUST
derived, and the version they did derive has contributions from other
persons under the GPL license.
Even ignoring the other contributions this mail states LPPL not the
simplified LPPL GUST is using.
So GUST is still redistributing fonts relicensed without authorisation.
Ironicaly this mail confirms the fonts were indeed always released under
the GPL by URW+, which was one argument advanced to 'justify' the
relicensing (as if having doubts about the license of a file was
sufficient to slap another on it).
I suppose now we'll see energy extended to re-derive the GS 4.0 version
of the fonts and purge any reason to use the licensing which has served
well the community for years.
This is all very sad.
Le dimanche 28 juin 2009 à 21:57 +0100, Dave Crossland a écrit :
:)
Regards, Dave
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jerzy Ludwichowski jerzy.ludwichow...@uni.torun.pl
Date: 28 Jun 2009, 9:31 PM
Subject: LUG-boards: URW++ original 35 fonts available under
LPPL
To: LUG boards lug-boa...@ifi.uio.no
Dear Friends,
please send out the message below to your members.
Regards,
Jerzy Ludwichowski
--
From: presid...@gust.org.pl (Jerzy B. Ludwichowski)
Subject: URW++ making original 35 fonts available under LPPL
I am forwarding the message below on behalf of Peter
Rosenfeld, Managing
Director of URW++, who has kindly agreed to make the basic 35
PostScript
fonts also available under the LPPL. At his request, I'll be
disseminating the information throughout the TeX community.
Many thanks to Dr. Rosenfeld!
Many thanks are also due to Karl Berry, TUG President, for his
unswerving
support and advice and Bogus\{}aw Jackowski, lead TeX Gyre
developer,
for pushing the issue.
Best,
Jerzy
From: Peter Rosenfeld
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:33:29 +0200
Subject: URW++ original 35 fonts available under LPPL
To whom it may concern,
Many years ago, URW++ Design and Development Inc. released
their
Type 1 implementations of the basic 35 PostScript fonts under
the
GNU General Public License and the Aladdin Ghostscript Free
Public
License.
We now additionally release them under the LaTeX Project
Public License
(http://www.latex-project.org/lppl), either version 1 or (at
your
option) any later version.
Of course, this additional licensing applies to the original
URW++
material, not any subsequent changes and additions made by
other
parties.
The original font files are widely available, for instance as
part of
the Ghostscript 4.00 release, and therefore we are not
releasing any new
font files. Those interested can replace the license terms in
those
original files accordingly. Responsibility for ensuring that
no
material is incorrectly licensed remains with the distributor,
as
always.
We hope this additional licensing will make our fonts even
more widely
available and usable in the free software community, such as
the TeX
Gyre Project.
Sincerely,
Peter Rosenfeld (Managing Director, URW++)
--
Nicolas Mailhot
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
___
Fedora-fonts-list mailing list
Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
Re: TeX Live 2008 available for testing
Le samedi 27 juin 2009 à 14:41 +0200, Jindrich Novy a écrit : TeX Live 2008 is now packaged and available for testing. It is not in Fedora yet because it requires reviews of couple of packages. But you can test it before it happens. None of your font packages follow Fedora fonts packaging guidelines. They won't pass review or if they do slip through review they'll add hundreds of lines to repo audit results and we'll have to open scores of bugs. Please read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy and make your packaging respect it. Just because a truetype or type1 is installed through TEX does not change its essential fontness. Other packagers have created guidelines-compliant tex font packages monthes ago. -- Nicolas Mailhot signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
GFS Theokritos problem
Dear sir, As part of the automated sanity tests we run on the fonts shipped in Fedora, we've detected that the following font files do not declare any English font family name. While it's perfectly fine to declare localized names, making sure one of them is tagged as English makes font management a lot easier for software. Please consider fixing this. fc-query /usr/share/fonts/gfs-theokritos/GFSTheokritos.otf Pattern has 19 elts (size 32) family: GFS Theokritos(s) familylang: el(s) style: Regular(s) stylelang: en(s) fullname: GFS Theokritos Regular(s) GFS Theokritos(s) fullnamelang: en(s) en(s) slant: 0(i)(s) weight: 80(i)(s) width: 100(i)(s) foundry: unknown(s) file: /usr/share/fonts/gfs-theokritos/GFSTheokritos.otf(s) index: 0(i)(s) outline: FcTrue(s) scalable: FcTrue(s) charset: : 7fff 0a2e5b80 904202f0 1efeffbf 0003: 00180143 002c 4410 d7f0 fffb 04007fff 001f: 3f3f aaff3f3f 3fff ffdf efcfffdf 7fdc 0020: 3318 00010041 0021: 0040 0022: 0040 0100 0031 (s) lang: crh|csb|de|ee|fj|ga|gn|gv|ha|he|kum|la|lg|no|nv|ny|om|rn|sco|sel| sid|so|to|tw|ur|ve|wal|wo|xh|zh-cn|zh-hk|zh-tw(s) fontversion: 65536(i)(s) fontformat: CFF(s) decorative: FcFalse(s) Best regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:Fonts_SIG signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée ___ Fedora-fonts-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-list
