I've manually installed KDE desktop (yum install <pkg> ..., i.e. without anaconda) and found that no fonts were installed. There were just rectangles instead of letters in KDM. I filed a bug (#523957) which led to conclusion to discuss this issue on fedora-devel.
It looks like no common desktop package requires any fonts. First package I installed which actually had such requirement was openoffice-core.
Would it make sense to make one font default in Fedora and install it as a dependency of xorg-x11-server-common or similar package which appears on each desktop?
As far I can tell, most users install dejavu or liberation fonts. These two are also those required by openoffice-core.
- daniel
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Daniel Mach dmach@redhat.com wrote:
I've manually installed KDE desktop (yum install <pkg> ..., i.e. without anaconda) and found that no fonts were installed.
Use "yum groupinstall" to add a desktop.
On 09/18/2009 04:42 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Daniel Machdmach@redhat.com wrote:
I've manually installed KDE desktop (yum install<pkg> ..., i.e. without anaconda) and found that no fonts were installed.
Use "yum groupinstall" to add a desktop.
Which group should I install? yum install @base-x is definitely not a good choice, it installs a lot of packages I don't really want. It's 107 additional packages to my current installation.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Daniel Mach dmach@redhat.com wrote:
Which group should I install? yum install @base-x is definitely not a good choice, it installs a lot of packages I don't really want. It's 107 additional packages to my current installation.
I'm just explaining the supported way to install a desktop (in the case of what I manage that's gnome-desktop), if it's too big for your constraints then you can try removing applications (this requires "yum shell" or a kickstart file), or wait for us to figure out how to sanely split off localization data...
Colin Walters wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Daniel Mach dmach@redhat.com wrote:
Which group should I install? yum install @base-x is definitely not a good choice, it installs a lot of packages I don't really want. It's 107 additional packages to my current installation.
I'm just explaining the supported way to install a desktop (in the case of what I manage that's gnome-desktop)
As far as I can tell, gnome-desktop doesn't include explicit (default or otherwise) fonts either.
Shouldn't a good/default set of monospace/sans/serif fonts get pulled in from somewhere, somehow? Am I missing something?
Would be going too far to be adding to (to some/all) font-providing packages, something like: Provides: monospace-fonts Provides: sans-fonts
and Requires's these somewhere? (an initial/naive choice might be in fontconfig perhaps)
-- Rex
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu wrote:
As far as I can tell, gnome-desktop doesn't include explicit (default or otherwise) fonts either.
I haven't dug through the dependency graph yet, but looking at fedora-livecd-desktop.ks:
google-droid-sans-fonts google-droid-sans-mono-fonts google-droid-serif-fonts
These are wrong and should be in the comps group. Looks like Matthias added them. I'll move them to comps now.
Shouldn't a good/default set of monospace/sans/serif fonts get pulled in from somewhere, somehow? Am I missing something?
I have no opinion personally on whether this should live in the package dependency graph (and if so, where).
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Colin Walters walters@verbum.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu wrote:
As far as I can tell, gnome-desktop doesn't include explicit (default or otherwise) fonts either.
I haven't dug through the dependency graph yet, but looking at fedora-livecd-desktop.ks:
google-droid-sans-fonts google-droid-sans-mono-fonts google-droid-serif-fonts
These are wrong and should be in the comps group. Looks like Matthias added them. I'll move them to comps now.
Patches attached; Matthias could you review?
Colin Walters wrote, at 09/19/2009 12:55 AM +9:00:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Colin Walters walters@verbum.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu wrote:
As far as I can tell, gnome-desktop doesn't include explicit (default or otherwise) fonts either.
I haven't dug through the dependency graph yet, but looking at fedora-livecd-desktop.ks:
google-droid-sans-fonts google-droid-sans-mono-fonts google-droid-serif-fonts
These are wrong and should be in the comps group. Looks like Matthias added them. I'll move them to comps now.
Patches attached; Matthias could you review?
Well, just FYI there is a complaint that currently google-droid-XXX-fonts breaks Japanese default desktop font. It is rather annoying problem for CJK users what the "default" font is. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517789
By the way I have never tried to install google-droid-XXX-fonts, however I think most Japanese (and CJK) users won't need or use these fonts.
Mamoru
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp wrote:
Well, just FYI there is a complaint that currently google-droid-XXX-fonts breaks Japanese default desktop font. It is rather annoying problem for CJK users what the "default" font is.
By the way I have never tried to install google-droid-XXX-fonts, however I think most Japanese (and CJK) users won't need or use these fonts.
Ssounds like an important bug but it looks like more knowledgable people than me are on top of it; what I'm trying to rectify here is that the desktop spin kickstart should not be creating a non-subtractive delta from the comps group, or in other words it should just be subtraction for space.
Whether droid is installed/used by default is another issue entirely.
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Colin Walters walters@verbum.org wrote:
Whether droid is installed/used by default is another issue entirely.
Is there a feature page for this by the way? (I didn't see one in a quick search).
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 15:55 +0000, Colin Walters wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Colin Walters walters@verbum.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu wrote:
As far as I can tell, gnome-desktop doesn't include explicit (default or otherwise) fonts either.
I haven't dug through the dependency graph yet, but looking at fedora-livecd-desktop.ks:
google-droid-sans-fonts google-droid-sans-mono-fonts google-droid-serif-fonts
These are wrong and should be in the comps group. Looks like Matthias added them. I'll move them to comps now.
Patches attached; Matthias could you review?
Please hold off with moving them to comps until we are sure that the Japanese problems with Droid are solved. If we can't get that fixed in time for the beta, I'm going to drop the Droid fonts from the desktop spin for F12.
Colin Walters wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu wrote:
As far as I can tell, gnome-desktop doesn't include explicit (default or otherwise) fonts either.
I haven't dug through the dependency graph yet, but looking at fedora-livecd-desktop.ks:
google-droid-sans-fonts google-droid-sans-mono-fonts google-droid-serif-fonts
These are wrong and should be in the comps group. Looks like Matthias added them. I'll move them to comps now.
I guess I'll do similarly for @kde-desktop, until a better solution lands.
-- Rex
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu wrote:
Colin Walters wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu wrote:
As far as I can tell, gnome-desktop doesn't include explicit (default or otherwise) fonts either.
I haven't dug through the dependency graph yet, but looking at fedora-livecd-desktop.ks:
google-droid-sans-fonts google-droid-sans-mono-fonts google-droid-serif-fonts
These are wrong and should be in the comps group. Looks like Matthias added them. I'll move them to comps now.
I guess I'll do similarly for @kde-desktop, until a better solution lands.
We could put them in base-x I guess, the definition of which seems to vaguely be "stuff shared between gnome-desktop and kde-desktop".
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu wrote:
Colin Walters wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu wrote:
As far as I can tell, gnome-desktop doesn't include explicit (default or otherwise) fonts either.
I haven't dug through the dependency graph yet, but looking at fedora-livecd-desktop.ks:
google-droid-sans-fonts google-droid-sans-mono-fonts google-droid-serif-fonts
These are wrong and should be in the comps group. Looks like Matthias added them. I'll move them to comps now.
I guess I'll do similarly for @kde-desktop, until a better solution lands.
We could put them in base-x I guess, the definition of which seems to vaguely be "stuff shared between gnome-desktop and kde-desktop".
As I've already written, fonts were split from base-x because it was becoming un-manageable. If you want Fedora default fonts just install the fonts group. Almost every package in there is optional except for the minimal set i18n judges necessary.
Colin Walters (walters@verbum.org) said:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu wrote:
As far as I can tell, gnome-desktop doesn't include explicit (default or otherwise) fonts either.
I haven't dug through the dependency graph yet, but looking at fedora-livecd-desktop.ks:
google-droid-sans-fonts google-droid-sans-mono-fonts google-droid-serif-fonts
These are wrong and should be in the comps group. Looks like Matthias added them. I'll move them to comps now.
Is there a reason we make these the default instead of the more-or-less current default of dejavu?
Bill
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Colin Walters (walters@verbum.org) said:
google-droid-sans-fonts google-droid-sans-mono-fonts google-droid-serif-fonts
Is there a reason we make these the default instead of the more-or-less current default of dejavu?
Good question, especially considering that DejaVu has far better glyph coverage than google-droid. (The foundry which makes the Droid fonts sells a "Pro" version with higher glyph coverage, which we obviously cannot ship for both licensing and royalty reasons.) I think this is a step backwards.
Kevin Kofler
I wrote:
(The foundry which makes the Droid fonts sells a "Pro" version with higher glyph coverage, which we obviously cannot ship for both licensing and royalty reasons.)
That actually seems not to be true, I checked their site and they say the Pro version only has more "typographical features", not more coverage. (This may have changed recently, or I might just have remembered incorrectly.)
That said, how does glyph coverage compare to DejaVu's? DejaVu has a table of its coverage: http://dejavu.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/dejavu/trunk/dejavu- fonts/unicover.txt Is ther anything like that for Droid?
Kevin Kofler
I wrote:
(The foundry which makes the Droid fonts sells a "Pro" version with higher glyph coverage, which we obviously cannot ship for both licensing and royalty reasons.)
That actually seems not to be true, I checked their site and they say the Pro version only has more "typographical features", not more coverage. (This may have changed recently, or I might just have remembered incorrectly.)
That said, how does glyph coverage compare to DejaVu's? DejaVu has a table of its coverage: http://dejavu.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/dejavu/trunk/dejavu- fonts/unicover.txt
Droid does not have the whole style set DejaVu has (not even the complete normal/bold/italic/bold-italic) and only has more glyphs because it includes a huge CJK fallback font of medium quality (which BTW the Japanese seem not to like). For european scripts, its coverage is well below dejavu
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/font/custom.htm
But that does not matter since a desktop comps group is not the place where we define default fonts, and I'm not going to let people play with fire and increase the Droid font priority in my package.
Colin Walters (walters@verbum.org) said:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu wrote:
As far as I can tell, gnome-desktop doesn't include explicit (default
or
otherwise) fonts either.
I haven't dug through the dependency graph yet, but looking at fedora-livecd-desktop.ks:
google-droid-sans-fonts google-droid-sans-mono-fonts google-droid-serif-fonts
These are wrong and should be in the comps group. Looks like Matthias added them. I'll move them to comps now.
Is there a reason we make these the default instead of the more-or-less current default of dejavu?
Because they're not the default, the defaults are defined in the @fonts group, this is an experiment by the desktop team, without any concertation, or understanding on how we managed fonts so far.
I learned about it when the bug report landed in my lap.
On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 20:08 +0200, nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net wrote:
Because they're not the default, the defaults are defined in the @fonts group, this is an experiment by the desktop team, without any concertation, or understanding on how we managed fonts so far.
Given that fact that merely including a font in a spin has the potential to break the Japanese desktop, there seem to be some things amiss with 'how we managed fonts so far', I'd say.
On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 20:08 +0200, nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net wrote:
Because they're not the default, the defaults are defined in the @fonts group, this is an experiment by the desktop team, without any concertation, or understanding on how we managed fonts so far.
Given that fact that merely including a font in a spin has the potential to break the Japanese desktop, there seem to be some things amiss with 'how we managed fonts so far', I'd say.
One part of 'how we managed fonts so far' was to triple-check anything CJK-related and get it approved by the i18n team because fontconfig sucks in this case. This problem has been well known for several years, but fontconfig's previous maintainer did not put a high priority on it.
Finding a solution for this case is on the huge TODO list Behdad published this summer.
@base-x is a pretty broken comps group, to be honest. I'd really like to see a split between "the minimal stuff needed to make X work" and "a bunch of desktop-agnostic stuff".
how about having a group minimal-x beside base-x so that it would be easy to compose a minimal lxde-based spin
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 12:44 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Colin Walters (walters@verbum.org) said:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu wrote:
As far as I can tell, gnome-desktop doesn't include explicit (default or otherwise) fonts either.
I haven't dug through the dependency graph yet, but looking at fedora-livecd-desktop.ks:
google-droid-sans-fonts google-droid-sans-mono-fonts google-droid-serif-fonts
These are wrong and should be in the comps group. Looks like Matthias added them. I'll move them to comps now.
Is there a reason we make these the default instead of the more-or-less current default of dejavu?
We don't.
Colin Walters, Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:46:50 +0000:
These are wrong and should be in the comps group. Looks like Matthias added them. I'll move them to comps now.
Which seems like to typical Fedora event ... after all FESCO approved Features, code freezes, etc. etc., somebody just throws incompatible, untested, and frankly worse fonts to comps and chages the look of whole distro (yes, I know, these are just for LiveCD).
/me shakes his fist at comps and complaints for thousand times that we don't have Suggests/Recommends, which would maintained by somebody who at least has a clue about package in question.
Matěj
On Sun, 2009-09-20 at 05:55 +0000, Matej Cepl wrote:
Colin Walters, Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:46:50 +0000:
These are wrong and should be in the comps group. Looks like Matthias added them. I'll move them to comps now.
Which seems like to typical Fedora event ... after all FESCO approved Features, code freezes, etc. etc., somebody just throws incompatible, untested, and frankly worse fonts to comps and chages the look of whole distro (yes, I know, these are just for LiveCD).
/me shakes his fist at comps and complaints for thousand times that we don't have Suggests/Recommends, which would maintained by somebody who at least has a clue about package in question.
Save your fake rage...nobody changed any look. The fonts are included on the spin, but dejavu is still the default.
Colin Walters wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Daniel Mach dmach@redhat.com wrote:
Which group should I install? yum install @base-x is definitely not a good choice, it installs a lot of packages I don't really want. It's 107 additional packages to my current installation.
I'm just explaining the supported way to install a desktop (in the case of what I manage that's gnome-desktop)
As far as I can tell, gnome-desktop doesn't include explicit (default or otherwise) fonts either.
Shouldn't a good/default set of monospace/sans/serif fonts get pulled in from somewhere, somehow? Am I missing something?
The defaults are pulled from the @fonts group. It's not a simple requires because we don't have any font that covers the whole unicode range, so defaults need to be composed from multiple fonts.
On Fri, 2009-09-18 at 16:51 +0200, Daniel Mach wrote:
On 09/18/2009 04:42 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Daniel Machdmach@redhat.com wrote:
I've manually installed KDE desktop (yum install<pkg> ..., i.e. without anaconda) and found that no fonts were installed.
Use "yum groupinstall" to add a desktop.
Which group should I install? yum install @base-x is definitely not a good choice, it installs a lot of packages I don't really want. It's 107 additional packages to my current installation.
@base-x is a pretty broken comps group, to be honest. I'd really like to see a split between "the minimal stuff needed to make X work" and "a bunch of desktop-agnostic stuff".
Actually, that's not true. Someone should own the choose-your-own-adventure desktop experience and come up with a decent way of selecting devilspie/fluxbox/twm/ratpoison etc. And I'm going to bet that that won't be comps groups, which means they shouldn't be listed in comps at all.
- ajax