[Bug 1278049] New: Default search directories do not include the
location of TeX Live fonts
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1278049
Bug ID: 1278049
Summary: Default search directories do not include the location
of TeX Live fonts
Product: Fedora
Version: 23
Component: fontconfig
Assignee: tagoh(a)redhat.com
Reporter: dchristidis(a)mykolab.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, pnemade(a)redhat.com,
tagoh(a)redhat.com
Description of problem:
Beginning with Fedora 23, the OTF files for Computer Modern Unicode are
included in texlive-cm-unicode. However, fontconfig is not configured to search
the install location by default. Thus, the user is required to perform
additional steps to use that font in TeX or other applications.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
fontconfig-2.11.94-4.fc23.x86_64
texlive-cm-unicode-svn19445.0.7.0-14.fc23.noarch
How reproducible:
Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. dnf install texlive-cm-unicode
2. fc-list | grep CMU
Actual results:
fontconfig does not locate the recently installed fonts.
Expected results:
After installation, the fonts should be available for use without further
actions.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=53zwOwA7t3&a=cc_unsubscribe
8 years, 4 months
[Bug 1227614] New: Font rendering is poor in Fedora 22
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1227614
Bug ID: 1227614
Summary: Font rendering is poor in Fedora 22
Product: Fedora
Version: 22
Component: freetype
Assignee: mkasik(a)redhat.com
Reporter: sudhir(a)sudhirkhanger.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: behdad(a)fedoraproject.org,
fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org, mkasik(a)redhat.com
Created attachment 1034149
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1034149&action=edit
screenshot
Description of problem:
Font rendering on Fedora 21 KDE worked fine. But in Fedora 22 which uses
freetype-2.5.5-1.fc22.x86_64 it is way too grainier. I use slight hint which
doesn't seem to be applied at all. RPMFusion which uses F21's
freetype-freeworld-2.3.11 works fine. So something must have gone wrong in the
update.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
How reproducible:
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
Actual results:
Expected results:
Additional info:
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=aU8lA46g7B&a=cc_unsubscribe
8 years, 5 months
[Bug 1195021] New: The ttf oldstandard-sfd fonts are corrupted
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195021
Bug ID: 1195021
Summary: The ttf oldstandard-sfd fonts are corrupted
Product: Fedora
Version: 20
Component: oldstandard-sfd-fonts
Assignee: sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com
Reporter: eko(a)lanet.lv
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com
Created attachment 994206
--> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=994206&action=edit
An exmple of errors in the ttf file.
Description of problem:
The ttf files are with errors.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
oldstandard-sfd-fonts-2.0.2-13.fc20
The same with oldstandard-sfd-fonts-2.0.2-15.fc21. The corrupted fonts has a
very long history – the ttf files from package
oldstandard-sfd-fonts-2.0.2-3.fc10 are already damaged.
How reproducible:
100%
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Open /usr/share/fonts/oldstandard/* files with any font viewer.
Actual results:
There is a garbage in place of letters (see the attached screen-shot)
Expected results:
Usable fonts.
Additional info:
I try to rebuilt this package from SRPM – no luck. The fontforge refuses to
built usable ttf even by hand. There are two options to solve the issue:
1) To generate OTF not the TTF (preferred solution);
2) To use ready-made ttf from
http://www.fontsquirrel.com/fonts/old-standard-TT.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0XRZ2KCY22&a=cc_unsubscribe
8 years, 5 months
[Bug 1284215] New: Possible copyright violation with the Myanmar3
unicode font
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1284215
Bug ID: 1284215
Summary: Possible copyright violation with the Myanmar3 unicode
font
Product: Fedora
Version: 23
Component: myanmar3-unicode-fonts
Assignee: mvaliyav(a)redhat.com
Reporter: htl10(a)users.sourceforge.net
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
mvaliyav(a)redhat.com, pnemade(a)redhat.com
Description of problem:
I am testing the new digital signature reading functionality of the newly
open-sourced Microsoft Font Validator against all the fonts on Fedora, and
found an anormaly - the Myanmar3 unicode font contains a digital signature
table
which has Microsoft as the signer. The digital signature does not verify.
However, the fact that the copyright field in the SFNT name tables does not
match the digital signature's signer, means that either
the font editor copied the digital table itself from a microsoft font (which is
a small copyright violation), or the whole font was derived and renamed from a
microsoft copyrighted font (which is a big copyright violation).
Please investigate.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
myanmar3-unicode-fonts-3.00-13.fc23.noarch
How reproducible:
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
Actual results:
Expected results:
Additional info:
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XGTU3EEz1J&a=cc_unsubscribe
8 years, 6 months
[Bug 1174218] New: incorrect smoothing
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174218
Bug ID: 1174218
Summary: incorrect smoothing
Product: Fedora
Version: 21
Component: freetype
Assignee: mkasik(a)redhat.com
Reporter: lavrinov2004(a)rambler.ru
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: behdad(a)fedoraproject.org,
fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
kevin(a)tigcc.ticalc.org, mkasik(a)redhat.com
Description of problem:
In Fedora 21 after an upgrade, upgrade the package to version 2.5.3-13 freetype
resulting stopped working font smoothing in Mozilla Firefox and Wine. In the
previous version 2.5.3-11 freetipe everything worked well.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qPrspQ2jgn&a=cc_unsubscribe
8 years, 6 months
[Bug 1062903] New: cantarell hints very poorly with new freetype CFF engine (i.e. regression)
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062903
Bug ID: 1062903
Summary: cantarell hints very poorly with new freetype CFF
engine (i.e. regression)
Product: Fedora
Version: 20
Component: abattis-cantarell-fonts
Assignee: ccecchi(a)redhat.com
Reporter: pierre-bugzilla(a)ossman.eu
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: ccecchi(a)redhat.com, fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Bug 995643 was filed against freetype for hinting Cantarell very poorly. That
was closed as NOTABUG. But that doesn't change the fact that Cantarell is still
fuzzy, which is a major issue for a UI font. So let's try filing this bug the
other way around. :)
Playing around with ftview suggests that forced auto hinting gives back roughly
the same hinting as in Fedora 19. So could we have that as a fontconfig bandaid
until better hinting information is available in the font itself?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=y3p7SGp4NL&a=cc_unsubscribe
8 years, 6 months
[Bug 1271787] Review Request: comic-neue-fonts - A typeface family
inspired by Comic Sans
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271787
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> ---
Issues
======
%clean section is unnecesary.
%defattr is unnecessary.
%_font_pkg macro gets folded into %description. Try moving it to a different
place.
(See output from -qpi comic-neue-fonts-2.2-1.fc24.src.rpm).
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = question
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
OFL.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 67 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1271787-comic-neue-
fonts/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
See above.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[?]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 481280 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
fonts:
[-]: Run repo-font-audit on all fonts in package.
Note: Test run failed
repo-font-audit seems borked.
[x]: Run ttname on all fonts in package.
Note: ttname analyze results in fonts/ttname.log.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: comic-neue-fonts-common-2.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
comic-neue-fonts-2.2-1.fc24.src.rpm
comic-neue-fonts.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %_font_pkg
comic-neue-fonts.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US conf -> con,
cone, cons
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires
--------
comic-neue-fonts-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
fontpackages-filesystem
Provides
--------
comic-neue-fonts-common:
comic-neue-fonts-common
Looks good, but please fix the %_font_pkg problem.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dXSSNJTCrw&a=cc_unsubscribe
8 years, 6 months