Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Fonts project meeting and elections
On Wed, 4 Mar 2015 20:51:44 +0800 Ben de Groot wrote: > Alexis, can you shed some light on this from the TeX side? What font > formats can be used by various TeX packages? Ahah :) Short answer: All. More or less properly depending on the font and its format. More detailed answer: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/LaTeX/Fonts xetex & luatex can use freetype/fontconfig; others usually rely on conversion to tex native format (pk+tfm), automatically I am not sure if the font doesnt come from the texmf tree Alexis.
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Fonts project meeting and elections
On 1 March 2015 at 23:36, Guilherme Amadio wrote: > On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 08:59:38PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: >> On 28 February 2015 at 19:52, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> > On 02/28/2015 01:47 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: >> >> >> >> If we do the use expand, we should leave it up for users to set. I >> >> suggest we default to only otf, if there is a choice. Other formats >> >> should not be installed by default, unless it's the only option for >> >> that package. >> >> >> > >> > This is going to get confusing fast -- please consider just installing >> > everything by default. If you default to "only OTF," what happens when >> > you install a foo-ttf package? Is it a no-op? What if there's a package >> > that only ships WOFF files? A combination of TTF and WOFF? >> > >> > Most of the fonts are tiny and it's not worth the hassle to avoid a few >> > kilobytes. It will also keep the eclass nice and clean. If you default >> > to installing everything, then when a user goes out of his way to remove >> > (say) WOFF, you can go ahead and just ignore WOFF files even if the >> > result is something stupid like an empty package. >> > >> > (The webfonts might be useful for clients, by the way. If they're not >> > installed locally, your browser downloads them on-demand and caches them >> > for later use.) >> > >> > >> >> Actually, after thinking about it some more, and doing some more >> research, I think this approach is unnecessary. Unless someone can >> tell me otherwise, I don't think we have any software that can handle >> truetype fonts but not opentype fonts. Most if not all of these >> packages use media-libs/freetype, which displays both formats just >> fine. So when we have font packages that offer both ttf and otf, then >> we should just install the superior format, which is OpenType. >> >> For packages that only offer one format, we install that format. >> >> Webfonts are also not an issue, as they are simply repackaged OpenType >> fonts aimed at web delivery. But most web developers use third party >> CDNs for that, such as Google Fonts. For the very few people who want >> to serve WOFF fonts from their own websites, I'm sure they can locate >> them as necessary. >> >> And webfonts are not useful for clients. Users should simply install >> the otf (or ttf) format of those fonts locally, and they will be >> picked up instead of the webfonts. >> >> Summarized, I propose the following policy: >> >> 1. If there is a choice of formats between otf and ttf, install only otf. >> 2. Do not install webfonts. > > I agree with your policy, but I think it's still a good idea to offer a > mechanism to install the other formats for those who need it, maybe via > truetype and woff or webfont USE flags. LaTeX, for example, may not be > able to use OpenType fonts, unless you use XeTeX, or other newer > variant, and sometimes a package you may want to use is only available > for plain LaTeX or PDFTeX (pst-solides3d and pstricks come to mind). > > We could have global USE flags for each popular font format, turn on the > flag for OpenType by default, and let users choose extra formats they > want. Another thing we might want to work on is on a way to convert > fonts for use with legacy LaTeX software that can't use OpenType files. Alexis, can you shed some light on this from the TeX side? What font formats can be used by various TeX packages? -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Fonts project meeting and elections
Guilherme Amadio wrote: > We could have global USE flags for each popular font format, turn on the > flag for OpenType by default, and let users choose extra formats they > want. I like this suggestion very much. This is exactly what I want from Gentoo. > Another thing we might want to work on is on a way to convert fonts > for use with legacy LaTeX software that can't use OpenType files. That's a good software project idea! //Peter
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Fonts project meeting and elections
On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 08:59:38PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 28 February 2015 at 19:52, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 02/28/2015 01:47 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: > >>> > >>> Since this is mostly used for web developers, I recommend to leave it > >>> off for desktop users, but possibly on for servers, for example. > >> > >> If we do the use expand, we should leave it up for users to set. I > >> suggest we default to only otf, if there is a choice. Other formats > >> should not be installed by default, unless it's the only option for > >> that package. > >> > > > > This is going to get confusing fast -- please consider just installing > > everything by default. If you default to "only OTF," what happens when > > you install a foo-ttf package? Is it a no-op? What if there's a package > > that only ships WOFF files? A combination of TTF and WOFF? > > > > Most of the fonts are tiny and it's not worth the hassle to avoid a few > > kilobytes. It will also keep the eclass nice and clean. If you default > > to installing everything, then when a user goes out of his way to remove > > (say) WOFF, you can go ahead and just ignore WOFF files even if the > > result is something stupid like an empty package. > > > > (The webfonts might be useful for clients, by the way. If they're not > > installed locally, your browser downloads them on-demand and caches them > > for later use.) > > > > > > Actually, after thinking about it some more, and doing some more > research, I think this approach is unnecessary. Unless someone can > tell me otherwise, I don't think we have any software that can handle > truetype fonts but not opentype fonts. Most if not all of these > packages use media-libs/freetype, which displays both formats just > fine. So when we have font packages that offer both ttf and otf, then > we should just install the superior format, which is OpenType. > > For packages that only offer one format, we install that format. > > Webfonts are also not an issue, as they are simply repackaged OpenType > fonts aimed at web delivery. But most web developers use third party > CDNs for that, such as Google Fonts. For the very few people who want > to serve WOFF fonts from their own websites, I'm sure they can locate > them as necessary. > > And webfonts are not useful for clients. Users should simply install > the otf (or ttf) format of those fonts locally, and they will be > picked up instead of the webfonts. > > Summarized, I propose the following policy: > > 1. If there is a choice of formats between otf and ttf, install only otf. > 2. Do not install webfonts. I agree with your policy, but I think it's still a good idea to offer a mechanism to install the other formats for those who need it, maybe via truetype and woff or webfont USE flags. LaTeX, for example, may not be able to use OpenType fonts, unless you use XeTeX, or other newer variant, and sometimes a package you may want to use is only available for plain LaTeX or PDFTeX (pst-solides3d and pstricks come to mind). We could have global USE flags for each popular font format, turn on the flag for OpenType by default, and let users choose extra formats they want. Another thing we might want to work on is on a way to convert fonts for use with legacy LaTeX software that can't use OpenType files. Best, —Guilherme
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Fonts project meeting and elections
On 28 February 2015 at 19:52, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 02/28/2015 01:47 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: >>> >>> Since this is mostly used for web developers, I recommend to leave it >>> off for desktop users, but possibly on for servers, for example. >> >> If we do the use expand, we should leave it up for users to set. I >> suggest we default to only otf, if there is a choice. Other formats >> should not be installed by default, unless it's the only option for >> that package. >> > > This is going to get confusing fast -- please consider just installing > everything by default. If you default to "only OTF," what happens when > you install a foo-ttf package? Is it a no-op? What if there's a package > that only ships WOFF files? A combination of TTF and WOFF? > > Most of the fonts are tiny and it's not worth the hassle to avoid a few > kilobytes. It will also keep the eclass nice and clean. If you default > to installing everything, then when a user goes out of his way to remove > (say) WOFF, you can go ahead and just ignore WOFF files even if the > result is something stupid like an empty package. > > (The webfonts might be useful for clients, by the way. If they're not > installed locally, your browser downloads them on-demand and caches them > for later use.) > > Actually, after thinking about it some more, and doing some more research, I think this approach is unnecessary. Unless someone can tell me otherwise, I don't think we have any software that can handle truetype fonts but not opentype fonts. Most if not all of these packages use media-libs/freetype, which displays both formats just fine. So when we have font packages that offer both ttf and otf, then we should just install the superior format, which is OpenType. For packages that only offer one format, we install that format. Webfonts are also not an issue, as they are simply repackaged OpenType fonts aimed at web delivery. But most web developers use third party CDNs for that, such as Google Fonts. For the very few people who want to serve WOFF fonts from their own websites, I'm sure they can locate them as necessary. And webfonts are not useful for clients. Users should simply install the otf (or ttf) format of those fonts locally, and they will be picked up instead of the webfonts. Summarized, I propose the following policy: 1. If there is a choice of formats between otf and ttf, install only otf. 2. Do not install webfonts. Your thoughts? -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer
[gentoo-dev] Re: Fonts project meeting and elections
Michael Orlitzky posted on Sat, 28 Feb 2015 06:52:55 -0500 as excerpted: > (The webfonts might be useful for clients, by the way. If they're not > installed locally, your browser downloads them on-demand and caches them > for later use.) Well, unless the user tells it not to, of course. =:^) (That's the TL;DR version, too.) Firefox, RequestPolicy extension, set to disallow connection to domains (including fonts.google.com or whatever that common one is) other than the one directly browsed to, unless they've been specifically allowed from browsed domain to other-domain (or either one has been allowed globally). Rather effective anti-tracker, anti-malware and ad-blocker, altho it does take some time to get all your normally needed alloweds set so normally browsed-to sites "just work" for the most part. With youtube now switching to html5 video by default, for instance, with quite a few video- feed domains and with many videos two-levels deep, it took a few hours of youtubing to get nearly all the first-level-video-server domains allowed from youtube, but I'm still hitting blocks on the first-level-to-second- level permissions from time to time, and having to allow them as they come up. But all that facebook and twitter tracking due to those nearly ubiquitous icons... just doesn't track... since I don't allow it globally and am pretty strict about allowing it per-site as well. (Actually, as I seldom use those site and don't have accounts, and have actually followed links to say twitter only a few times and facebook possibly never, I basically don't allow it at all, but the general person who /does/ use them could simply be very selective about permanent alloweds and use temporary alloweds only when they actually want to use that functionality.) Back on-topic, most web-fonts don't get downloaded either, since they're from some third party site. I normally get the broken-character square instead, but most of the time functionality is obvious. Basically like noscript, but for general third-party connections, not just scripts, etc. Tho with both on (plus others like disconnect), a user often has to enable a site in multiple places to actually have it allowed. Which is good; defense in depth and all! =:^) Tho doing anything new on the web or browsing to a new site and getting it to work does tend to take me a bit longer than most, since I have to figure out what I have to turn on to get it to work, and what I can leave off as it's just tracking/ads/otherwise-unnecessary, does take a bit longer than it would if I were simply running around naked with everything hanging out to the world, as so many apparently choose to be, online if not IRL. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Fonts project meeting and elections
On 02/28/2015 01:47 AM, Ben de Groot wrote: >> >> Since this is mostly used for web developers, I recommend to leave it >> off for desktop users, but possibly on for servers, for example. > > If we do the use expand, we should leave it up for users to set. I > suggest we default to only otf, if there is a choice. Other formats > should not be installed by default, unless it's the only option for > that package. > This is going to get confusing fast -- please consider just installing everything by default. If you default to "only OTF," what happens when you install a foo-ttf package? Is it a no-op? What if there's a package that only ships WOFF files? A combination of TTF and WOFF? Most of the fonts are tiny and it's not worth the hassle to avoid a few kilobytes. It will also keep the eclass nice and clean. If you default to installing everything, then when a user goes out of his way to remove (say) WOFF, you can go ahead and just ignore WOFF files even if the result is something stupid like an empty package. (The webfonts might be useful for clients, by the way. If they're not installed locally, your browser downloads them on-demand and caches them for later use.)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Fonts project meeting and elections
On 28 February 2015 at 00:26, Guilherme Amadio wrote: > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 03:45:23PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: >> >> 1. lu_zero, matsuu, pva: do you still want to be members of the Fonts >> project? Then add yourselves to the new project page: >> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Fonts > > I'm listed, but why can I not edit the page? I'd like to be able to. You need to contact a...@gentoo.org to give you developer status on the wiki. >> 3. Handling of fonts with both truetype and opentype variants, as >> brought up in https://bugs.gentoo.org/406301#c8 >> Since OpenType is an extension of TrueType, and superior for desktop >> and printing use, I propose that we prefer installing just OpenType. >> But this should be user configurable, so in those cases I propose we >> do: >> >> IUSE="+opentype" >> if use opentype; then >> FONT_SUFFIX="otf" >> else >> FONT_SUFFIX="ttf" >> fi > > Both this and the use expand suggested by Luca seem good methods. > I also suggest we prefer OpenType over TrueType whenever possible. We need to get an addition to the eclass whipped up then, for use expand handling. >> 4. Project member should have a look at font bugs. >> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=media-fonts has a lot >> of low hanging fruit: version bumps, dead homepages, etc. Also some >> good new packages. > > I've seen a few of those and suggested webpages for a couple of them. > I can go fix some of these if nobody else does. Please do. >> 5. Some fonts have webfont variants (WOFF is the important one here). >> This may be useful for users doing web development. What are your >> thoughts on installing those (conditionally, toggled by useflag)? > > Since this is mostly used for web developers, I recommend to leave it > off for desktop users, but possibly on for servers, for example. If we do the use expand, we should leave it up for users to set. I suggest we default to only otf, if there is a choice. Other formats should not be installed by default, unless it's the only option for that package. >> Anything else you want to discuss? >> > > I'd like to suggest that we do not name new font packages font-*, but > simply by the name of the typeface, such as open-sans, source-pro, etc. I totally agree. I would also like to prevent format suffixes, such as in ttf-bitstream-vera. And I would also like just lowercase package names. I think all font-* packages we have in the tree are X.org shipped bitmap fonts. It's a useful indication for most users to ignore these. > There is Source Serif, Source Sans, and Source Han Sans that are not > packaged yet (see https://github.com/adobe-fonts for more info), We do have media-fonts/source-pro, and I am planning on bumping that package, as per bug #429780. I am hesitant to include the Han font tho, since it is a 700+ MB download that may catch users unawares. > as well > as many other nice and well-known typefaces and icon fonts such as > Aller, Amble, Casper, Clear Sans, Entypo, Font Awesome, Signika, Comic > Neue, Fira, Nexa, Exo, Nobile, Open Sans, etc. Some of those are on my to-do list already, but feel free to add others. > There is also the really nice Input (http://input.fontbureau.com), but > its license is only free for personal use, so we may need to talk to its > designer to see if we can package it at all. I'm using it on my laptop, > and it's a pleasure to read and very customizable. The non-redistributable license is a problem. That's why I have chosen not to include Envy R (which is somewhat popular for coding too). Adding fonts with fetch restrictions seem counter-productive to me. Users can simply download them for themselves and drop them in ~/.fonts/. > Well, maybe opening a #gentoo-fonts on IRC will be a nice way to > coordinate our efforts. I don't think there will be that much to discuss on an ongoing basis wrt fonts that it warrants a new channel. Let's keep it in #gentoo-desktop for now, and see if we actually need a dedicated channel. > Also, this is definitely a minor thing, but all designers prefer the > term typeface to font when referring to typefaces, so they'd probably be > happy if media-fonts became media-type, or something similar. The > distinction is that the set of fonts (regular, light, bold, condensed, > etc) is what makes a typeface, which is the general style of all fonts > in the set. Anyway, just food for thought. I am aware of this, but the usage of "fonts" is so ingrained in the popular mind, and it's a minor mistake at worst. I don't think it is worth going thru the trouble of renaming the category (and fixing all revdeps) for. We could use "typeface" in descriptions tho. Finally, I would like to bring up fontconfig-ultimate [1] with a user provided ebuild [2] and some discussion on the forums [3]. There are also many "fixed" fonts available, packaged for Arch Linux [4]. There is some user demand for this, so I think we should package it. I haven't yet taken the time to do so (too much
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Fonts project meeting and elections
Hello! On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 03:45:23PM +0800, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 22 February 2015 at 03:43, Ben de Groot wrote: > > To anyone within Gentoo who is interested in fonts > > > > I would like to announce a meeting to be held in #gentoo-meetings on > > Freenode, on Friday February 27 at 06:00 UTC, unless another date > > and/or time will be suggested by people who want to attend. > > Since nobody actually showed up, here is what I've decided and am proposing: Oops, got caught up by the timezone difference... Sorry about that. It was late at night here, but yesterday. > > 1. lu_zero, matsuu, pva: do you still want to be members of the Fonts > project? Then add yourselves to the new project page: > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Fonts I'm listed, but why can I not edit the page? I'd like to be able to. > > 2. Since aballier voted for me, and there were no other nominations, > we default to me becoming the lead. > > 3. Handling of fonts with both truetype and opentype variants, as > brought up in https://bugs.gentoo.org/406301#c8 > Since OpenType is an extension of TrueType, and superior for desktop > and printing use, I propose that we prefer installing just OpenType. > But this should be user configurable, so in those cases I propose we > do: > > IUSE="+opentype" > if use opentype; then > FONT_SUFFIX="otf" > else > FONT_SUFFIX="ttf" > fi Both this and the use expand suggested by Luca seem good methods. I also suggest we prefer OpenType over TrueType whenever possible. > > 4. Project member should have a look at font bugs. > https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=media-fonts has a lot > of low hanging fruit: version bumps, dead homepages, etc. Also some > good new packages. I've seen a few of those and suggested webpages for a couple of them. I can go fix some of these if nobody else does. > 5. Some fonts have webfont variants (WOFF is the important one here). > This may be useful for users doing web development. What are your > thoughts on installing those (conditionally, toggled by useflag)? Since this is mostly used for web developers, I recommend to leave it off for desktop users, but possibly on for servers, for example. > > Anything else you want to discuss? > I'd like to suggest that we do not name new font packages font-*, but simply by the name of the typeface, such as open-sans, source-pro, etc. There is Source Serif, Source Sans, and Source Han Sans that are not packaged yet (see https://github.com/adobe-fonts for more info), as well as many other nice and well-known typefaces and icon fonts such as Aller, Amble, Casper, Clear Sans, Entypo, Font Awesome, Signika, Comic Neue, Fira, Nexa, Exo, Nobile, Open Sans, etc. There is also the really nice Input (http://input.fontbureau.com), but its license is only free for personal use, so we may need to talk to its designer to see if we can package it at all. I'm using it on my laptop, and it's a pleasure to read and very customizable. Well, maybe opening a #gentoo-fonts on IRC will be a nice way to coordinate our efforts. Also, this is definitely a minor thing, but all designers prefer the term typeface to font when referring to typefaces, so they'd probably be happy if media-fonts became media-type, or something similar. The distinction is that the set of fonts (regular, light, bold, condensed, etc) is what makes a typeface, which is the general style of all fonts in the set. Anyway, just food for thought. Best, —Guilherme
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Fonts project meeting and elections
Ben de Groot wrote: > >> I propose that we prefer installing just OpenType. But this should > >> be user configurable, so in those cases I propose we do: > >> > >> IUSE="+opentype" > >> if use opentype; then > >> FONT_SUFFIX="otf" > >> else > >> FONT_SUFFIX="ttf" > >> fi > > > > So if I first USE=-opentype and later USE=opentype the filenames > > would change even though the fonts are actually the same. Do you > > know that no software packages will get horribly confused by that, > > and end up doing silly things such as listing each font twice? > > So what are you suggesting? I'm not sure what the solution is - I just pointed out that there might be a problem. //Peter
[gentoo-dev] Re: Fonts project meeting and elections
On 27/02/15 08:45, Ben de Groot wrote: > On 22 February 2015 at 03:43, Ben de Groot wrote: >> To anyone within Gentoo who is interested in fonts >> >> I would like to announce a meeting to be held in #gentoo-meetings on >> Freenode, on Friday February 27 at 06:00 UTC, unless another date >> and/or time will be suggested by people who want to attend. > > Since nobody actually showed up, here is what I've decided and am proposing: > > 1. lu_zero, matsuu, pva: do you still want to be members of the Fonts > project? Then add yourselves to the new project page: > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Fonts I do not have enough time for it right now. > 2. Since aballier voted for me, and there were no other nominations, > we default to me becoming the lead. Fine for me. > 3. Handling of fonts with both truetype and opentype variants, as > brought up in https://bugs.gentoo.org/406301#c8 > Since OpenType is an extension of TrueType, and superior for desktop > and printing use, I propose that we prefer installing just OpenType. > But this should be user configurable, so in those cases I propose we > do: > > IUSE="+opentype" > if use opentype; then > FONT_SUFFIX="otf" > else > FONT_SUFFIX="ttf" > fi If both are installed which is picked? > 5. Some fonts have webfont variants (WOFF is the important one here). > This may be useful for users doing web development. What are your > thoughts on installing those (conditionally, toggled by useflag)? I'd make it an use expand FONTS="otf ttf woff" If nothing is set install all, if some are set install those. lu
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Fonts project meeting and elections
On 27 February 2015 at 18:34, Peter Stuge wrote: > Ben de Groot wrote: >> I propose that we prefer installing just OpenType. But this should >> be user configurable, so in those cases I propose we do: >> >> IUSE="+opentype" >> if use opentype; then >> FONT_SUFFIX="otf" >> else >> FONT_SUFFIX="ttf" >> fi > > So if I first USE=-opentype and later USE=opentype the filenames > would change even though the fonts are actually the same. Do you > know that no software packages will get horribly confused by that, > and end up doing silly things such as listing each font twice? So what are you suggesting? -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Fonts project meeting and elections
Ben de Groot wrote: > I propose that we prefer installing just OpenType. But this should > be user configurable, so in those cases I propose we do: > > IUSE="+opentype" > if use opentype; then > FONT_SUFFIX="otf" > else > FONT_SUFFIX="ttf" > fi So if I first USE=-opentype and later USE=opentype the filenames would change even though the fonts are actually the same. Do you know that no software packages will get horribly confused by that, and end up doing silly things such as listing each font twice? //Peter
[gentoo-dev] Re: Fonts project meeting and elections
On 22 February 2015 at 03:43, Ben de Groot wrote: > To anyone within Gentoo who is interested in fonts > > I would like to announce a meeting to be held in #gentoo-meetings on > Freenode, on Friday February 27 at 06:00 UTC, unless another date > and/or time will be suggested by people who want to attend. Since nobody actually showed up, here is what I've decided and am proposing: 1. lu_zero, matsuu, pva: do you still want to be members of the Fonts project? Then add yourselves to the new project page: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Fonts 2. Since aballier voted for me, and there were no other nominations, we default to me becoming the lead. 3. Handling of fonts with both truetype and opentype variants, as brought up in https://bugs.gentoo.org/406301#c8 Since OpenType is an extension of TrueType, and superior for desktop and printing use, I propose that we prefer installing just OpenType. But this should be user configurable, so in those cases I propose we do: IUSE="+opentype" if use opentype; then FONT_SUFFIX="otf" else FONT_SUFFIX="ttf" fi 4. Project member should have a look at font bugs. https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=media-fonts has a lot of low hanging fruit: version bumps, dead homepages, etc. Also some good new packages. 5. Some fonts have webfont variants (WOFF is the important one here). This may be useful for users doing web development. What are your thoughts on installing those (conditionally, toggled by useflag)? Anything else you want to discuss? -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer
