On Sun, 10 Sept 2023 at 02:57, Gunnar Hjalmarsson
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> With fontconfig 2.14, which entered testing last January, upstream
> fontconfig prefers Noto over DejaVu in /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-latin.conf.
> The change was not preceded by any discussion I'm aware of. It appears
> to be related
> If I recall it correctly, the primary suggestion in that bug report
> is to split fonts-noto-core into an LCG and an "other" package.
I have created a MR to implement this:
https://salsa.debian.org/fonts-team/fonts-noto/-/merge_requests/1
- Fabian
signature.asc
Description: This is a
On 2023-09-15 05:03, Paul Wise wrote:
On Wed, 2023-09-13 at 21:09 +0200, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
So we have a conflict of goals here. The good news is that a user
who speaks some latin language, and who thinks it's important to be
able to easily select font directly in various applications,
On Thursday, September 14, 2023 11:03:07 PM EDT Paul Wise wrote:
Several packages ...
> Recommends: xml2rfc
...
For IETF RFC development, there are specific fonts that are required for the
PDF format (these are Recommends not Depends because very few RFCs need to be
in the PDF format, so most
On Wed, 2023-09-13 at 21:09 +0200, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
> So we have a conflict of goals here. The good news is that a user who
> speaks some latin language, and who thinks it's important to be able to
> easily select font directly in various applications, can do:
>
> apt purge
On 2023-09-13 21:09, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
There are at least two questions:
1. Should fonts-noto-core be installed by default?
I just uploaded fontconfig 2.14.2-6 including this commit:
https://salsa.debian.org/freedesktop-team/fontconfig/-/commit/3b8ef475
2. Which font should
> It's a bit ironic. I proposed in a MR to prepend fonts-noto-core to
> that list, and you merged it. At the time I wasn't aware of the
> significance of being listed first, and I suppose you weren't either.
Yes, this sounds ironic and you are right, I wasn't aware of the
implications of this
On 2023-09-14 10:50, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 09:09:00PM +0200, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
There is a problem with fonts-noto-core, though, as several people
have mentioned already: For non-LCG scripts it provides one font
per script. And there are quite a few of those. So
On 2023-09-13 21:29, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Gunnar Hjalmarsson (2023-09-13 21:09:00)
There is a problem with fonts-noto-core, though, as several people
have mentioned already: For non-LCG scripts it provides one font
per script. And there are quite a few of those. So for a user, who
On 2023-09-14 11:16, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Seriously, what I think should be installed on *every* system is a
complete set of serif/sans/mono latin fonts. And then additional
fonts should get pulled in by task-*-desktop packages based on the
user's selected language during D-I. This is how it
> So we have a conflict of goals here. The good news is that a user who
> speaks some latin language, and who thinks it's important to be able
> to easily select font directly in various applications, can do:
>
> apt purge fonts-noto-core
If this is deemed "okayish", then why bother about a
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 09:09:00PM +0200, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
> There is a problem with fonts-noto-core, though, as several people have
> mentioned already: For non-LCG scripts it provides one font per script. And
> there are quite a few of those. So for a user, who wants to actively and
>
Quoting Gunnar Hjalmarsson (2023-09-13 21:28:00)
> Hi Fabian,
>
> On 2023-09-12 08:24, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> > as has already been stated elsewhere, fontconfig upstream's move to
> > Noto as the default font has most probably not been done for
> > aesthetical reasons. That is, it is not the
Quoting Gunnar Hjalmarsson (2023-09-13 21:09:00)
> Should fonts-noto-core be installed by default?
> ---
> Personally I think it should. The primary reason is that fonts-noto-core
> offers a broad coverage of Unicode characters, and the quality is in
>
Hi Fabian,
On 2023-09-12 08:24, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
as has already been stated elsewhere, fontconfig upstream's move to
Noto as the default font has most probably not been done for
aesthetical reasons. That is, it is not the "most beautiful font"
that people "like better" then DejaVu, but
On 2023-09-09 23:08, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
My personal view is that it is a change in the right direction,
It struck me that I stated a position in my initial post without really
arguing for it. Silly me.
So with this message I try to repair that, and also highlight the
questions I
Quoting Bobby de Vos (2023-09-13 18:47:22)
> On 2023-09-12 03:09, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > Quoting Gioele Barabucci (2023-09-12 09:19:26)
> >> On 12/09/23 08:24, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> >>> Instead, even
> >>> the fonts-noto-core package installs a full pack of 268 (!) font files.
> >>> This
On 2023-09-12 05:40, Adam Borowski wrote:
You don't need to physically merge font files, fontconfig is fine with many
fonts sharing the same name. You can't then request a specific font, but
taking missing glyphs from others still works.
(Haven't looked at this in a while, would need to test.)
On 2023-09-12 03:09, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
Quoting Gioele Barabucci (2023-09-12 09:19:26)
On 12/09/23 08:24, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Instead, even
the fonts-noto-core package installs a full pack of 268 (!) font files.
This is discussed in detail in #983291 [1].
The issues is not that
The Wanderer left as an exercise for the reader:
> I have been considering how best to test this in something like a live
> environment, and have not yet settled on something that seems both
> sufficiently doable in my setup and also sufficiently likely to produce
> accurate results about my
On 2023-09-12 at 02:28, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> Hi Wanderer,
>
>> Rather than discussing only Noto vs. DejaVu, is there any
>> possibility of reintroducing Bitstream Vera as a default-font
>> option (even if with a low priority), for systems which have that
>> installed?
>
> can you even see
On Tue, Sep 12, 2023 at 09:19:26AM +0200, Gioele Barabucci wrote:
> On 12/09/23 08:24, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> > the fonts-noto-core package installs a full pack of 268 (!) font files.
> > This is discussed in detail in #983291 [1].
>
> The issues is not that there are too many files, but that
Quoting Gioele Barabucci (2023-09-12 09:19:26)
> On 12/09/23 08:24, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> > Instead, even
> > the fonts-noto-core package installs a full pack of 268 (!) font files.
> > This is discussed in detail in #983291 [1].
>
> The issues is not that there are too many files, but that
Hi Gioele,
> For example Noto Serif {Ahom, Bengali, Devanagari, Malayalam, Tamil,
> Thai, …} could be merged into "Noto Serif Asia". Then, Noto *
> {Africa, America, Asia, Europe, Oceania, Symbols} could be shipped in
> the fonts-noto-aggregated package and their entries added to Debian's
>
On 12/09/23 08:24, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
Instead, even
the fonts-noto-core package installs a full pack of 268 (!) font files.
This is discussed in detail in #983291 [1].
The issues is not that there are too many files, but that these files
become extra entries in font pickers (1 entry for
Hi Gunnar,
> Basically I'm asking if this move towards Noto is desirable and, if
> so, I plea for relevant input for the completion of the transition.
as has already been stated elsewhere, fontconfig upstream's move to
Noto as the default font has most probably not been done for
aesthetical
Hi Wanderer,
> Rather than discussing only Noto vs. DejaVu, is there any possibility
> of
> reintroducing Bitstream Vera as a default-font option (even if with a
> low priority), for systems which have that installed?
can you even see a difference between Bitstream Vera and DejaVu? The
latter
On Sun, 2023-09-10 at 11:34 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> Rather than discussing only Noto vs. DejaVu, is there any possibility of
> reintroducing Bitstream Vera as a default-font option (even if with a
> low priority), for systems which have that installed?
IIRC DejaVu is a fork of and similar
On 2023-09-10 16:04, Praveen Arimbrathodiyil wrote:
On 10 September 2023 2:38:38 am IST, Gunnar Hjalmarsson
wrote:
* The task-* packages should be reconsidered. At first hand I'm
thinking of all the non-latin task-* packages which recommend a
particular font. Let's take task-hindi-desktop as
On 2023-09-10 17:34, The Wanderer wrote:
I am not sure why DejaVu is the alternative default under
discussion.
Prior to the switch to Noto, the default preferred font family
(listed first in /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-latin.conf) was not DejaVu;
that was, as it still is, listed as the second
Thanks for your replies!
On 2023-09-10 05:23, Paul Wise wrote:
Personally, I found Noto Mono to be very ugly in comparison to the
DejaVu fonts that I was used to,
You did notice that we reversed to DejaVu Sans Mono for monospace, right?
* Gunnar Hjalmarsson [2023-09-09 23:08]:
> [...] fonts-noto-core covers "all" scripts [...]
Just want to point out it doesn't cover CJK, which ironically is the
one thing I actually use and prefer Noto for as I definitely prefer
DejaVu (or Bitstream Vera) for latin fonts, which is why I've been
On 2023-09-09 at 23:23, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, 2023-09-09 at 23:08 +0200, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
>
>> My personal view is that it is a change in the right direction, and
>> I have taken a couple of follow-up steps in Debian. There are still
>> loose ends and more work to be done to
On 10 September 2023 2:38:38 am IST, Gunnar Hjalmarsson
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>With fontconfig 2.14, which entered testing last January, upstream fontconfig
>prefers Noto over DejaVu in /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-latin.conf. The change was
>not preceded by any discussion I'm aware of. It appears to be
On Sun, 2023-09-10 at 11:23 +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, 2023-09-09 at 23:08 +0200, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
>
> > My personal view is that it is a change in the right direction, and
> > I
> > have taken a couple of follow-up steps in Debian. There are still
> > loose
> > ends and more
On Sat, 2023-09-09 at 23:08 +0200, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
> My personal view is that it is a change in the right direction, and I
> have taken a couple of follow-up steps in Debian. There are still loose
> ends and more work to be done to achieve a consistent configuration in
> this respect.
36 matches
Mail list logo
