Clockwork: The glyph has been replaced in 0.910-prerelease (see above).
0.910 currently has other regressions that make it hard to release in
its current form.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
Documentation Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-font-family-
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 851457 ***
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/851457
(Hasn't been updated, because there hasn't been a upstream realise to
fix it in).
** This bug has been marked a duplicate of bug 851457
[pkg] package should be renamed according to new Debian Fonts Policy
All in good time hopefully! :-)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
Documentation Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-font-family-
sources in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/934038
Title:
[nc] FFe: Upload $newer upstream version
Status in
This likely needs a day or two of debugging depending.
For fixing: once it's possible to rebuild the font, this is then likely
to be relatively easy to patch; either in the source, or binary. And
then an hour or so to confirm the fix works.
--
You received this bug notification because you are
Possibly from the numeral glyphs being fetched from Ubuntu Arabic
Regular, and the Latin coming from Ubuntu Regular, and the metrics
somehow being confused.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
Documentation Packages, which is subscribed to ubuntu-font-family-
If other people want to test:
sudo apt-get install fonts-ubuntu-font-family-console
dpkg -L fonts-ubuntu-font-family-console | grep -m1 .psf | xargs sudo setfont
-C /dev/tty2
and then it's possible to flick between:
Ctrl-Alt-F1 (tty1 showing Ubuntu Mono Regular rendered to 8x16)
The test case suggests a change to 'Ubuntu Mono', but the
'Ubuntu_0.831.zip' I have here doesn't have any Ubuntu Mono (nor source,
nor changelog, nor scripting, nor test cases, nor any contextual
information). I can see:
2016-01-04 11:31 Zip file (repacked today?)
2015-12-04 10:55 .ttfs
(For want of a better place to put it), useful ttx diffs + changelog
forwarded to me at the end of yesterday which gives more context on what
the above referenced .zip file delivery is.
[Kudos to DM Engineering to doing this in an automated fashion, and
those along the chain for passing it
Hello Daniel, plan is to switch the fonts for source-built versions.
These source-built fonts should in the first instance be work-alikes
(equivalents) to the binary fonts currently shipped via Google Fonts.
The versions hosted on Google Fonts have undergone various refinements
of the metadata
The valid CSS would be:
font-weight: lighter;
In the case of explicitly wanting "Ubuntu Light", once everything is
fixed, the CSS access will hopefully be just:
font-family: "Ubuntu";
font-weight: 300;
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
Documentation
** Changed in: fonts-ubuntu (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Incomplete
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
Documentation Packages, which is subscribed to fonts-ubuntu in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1574534
Title:
Aspect ratio of Ubuntu Mono font
11 matches
Mail list logo
