[Bug 1195652] New: Fixed font 6x13 fails to render in gnome-terminal after latest freetype update
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195652
Bug ID: 1195652
Summary: Fixed font 6x13 fails to render in gnome-terminal
after latest freetype update
Product: Fedora
Version: 21
Component: freetype
Assignee: mkasik(a)redhat.com
Reporter: sct(a)redhat.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
Description of problem:
After upgrading to the latest freetype, my default terminal font "6x13" (an old
fixed X font) will not render, rendering only empty squares in the terminal.
Downgrading only freetype to the older version restores rendering.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
freetype-2.5.3-15.fc21.x86_64
How reproducible:
100%
Steps to Reproduce:
TBH I've no idea how to set this font in gnome-terminal these days; on the face
of it
gsettings set
org.gnome.Terminal.Legacy.Profile:/b1dcc9dd-5262-4d8d-a863-c897e6d979b9/ font
"6x13"
should do it (and this is what the key is set to on my own system already), but
the preferences don't let you set this directly and I can't get gnome-terminal
to honour changes to that setting.
"emacs -font 6x13" shows similar issues, though: the bulk of the buffer renders
OK, but status line text sporadically fails to render with the new freetype.
--
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=E4pKZTbWgs&a=cc_unsubscribe
9 years, 2 months
[Bug 1198246] Review Request: oflb-coval-fonts - Derivation of other free of charge fonts
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198246
--- Comment #7 from Carlos (Morel-Riquelme) <iddnna(a)gmail.com> ---
Thank Paulo, here are my answers
1) i use oflb prefix cuz the font is is published as "open font library" and
parag recommend this.
2) the version of package is equal to the metadata in the font, in my first
revision my version was 0.1 or 1 , but parag tell me that is god idea respect
the metadata in the font. so i just run ttname -a coval.otf
3) parag recommend use 63, now i can't remember the wiki link with the info,
sorry
4)thank for the suggestion
5) Now i nned lear about fedora review and how make a good reviews of other
packages
6) Also run appstream-util over the font.xml,
but i add to the buildrequire appdata-tools
Thank Paulo :)
--
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=qWDkagzSAD&a=cc_unsubscribe
9 years, 2 months
[Bug 1198246] Review Request: oflb-coval-fonts - Derivation of other free of charge fonts
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198246
--- Comment #6 from Paulo Andrade <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade(a)gmail.com> ---
Hi Carlos. First I believe Parag instructions were all
correct, and Parag already knows a lot about fonts,
appdata, etc issues.
Also, I was looking at previous reviews, and your
reviews. I really would like some input from Parag
on this, as I do not want to step over, as Parag
was about to sponsor you.
Carlos, you change your accounts too fast, it is
hard to keep track of you :)
Since you asked me in a private email, I will help you;
and I understand you want to become a packager and
contribute :) the fact that you can talk to me in
spanish and understand me talking portuguese helps :)
But I need you to comment on the below issues; some are
actually to help me better help you :), as I maintain
mostly scientific/math packages in Fedora.
1) The prefix "oflb" prefix/foundry, can you comment
on it? Is it standard? Maybe it would be better named
breton-Coval-fonts ?
2) I believe you should use 0 as version, in case upstream
switches to a properly versioned release. That is, instead
of "Version: 1.00" have "Version: 0", and for release
can keep the same format, so that when rebuilding, bump
the leading "1".
3) Please give an explanation about the values, and why
choosing 63-oflb-coval.conf for fontconfig, I mean the
reason of choosing 63.
4) I do not like the idea of using fold to reformat the
license file. Please use only sed.
5) Your reviews were mostly asking for spelling corrections
due to rpmlint warnings. Unless it is really really wrong,
please ignore those warnings. You started using fedora-review
and setting mock options, etc, so, could trigger by yourself
a lot of different kinds of errors, that is good :)
6) I suggest adding "BuildRequires: appdata-tools"
to the spec, and in %install, run
"appstream-util validate coval.metainfo.xml"
or "validate-relax", that will cause it to pass.
--
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=O8aygelcCR&a=cc_unsubscribe
9 years, 2 months