https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1820166
--- Comment #9 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- (In reply to Nicolas Mailhot from comment #7)
(In reply to Akira TAGOH from comment #6)
Let's say more specific thing then. as this report complains about CJK, Google Noto CJK fonts isn't even inherited from Google Droid Japanese nor Google Droid Fallback. the unification you did in Droid says "it is a part of Droid" now. but CJK support in Droid isn't worth a fallback for Noto.
Again, I disagree, for design and historical and user expectation reasons Droid as a whole is the best fallback for Noto as a whole. The problem here is not the fallback, the problem here is that fontconfig fallbacks for Noto when the CJK parts of Noto are available on system.
So I'm wondering why you did push your packages only even though you know you break it. and I'm saying, if you want to push this to f32, all the required changes should be pushed together. the sort of this changes shouldn't be made in coming stable release.
They did not affect the default font. They affected a user-specific configuration. A user-specific configuration, BTW, that was attempting a limited Noto unification, because unification is the natural thing for users to do (as people have been reporting to fontconfig for years now).
I'm sorry, but it does. Noto fallback rule in google-droid-fonts breaks CJK default fonts when both google-droid-sans-fonts and google-noto-sans-fonts are installed regardless of custom configuration, because the logic of the issue happening here is that "Droid Sans" is added after "Noto Sans", which means "Droid Japanese" and "Droid Fallback" also has priority next to "Noto Sans". this is quite bad.
This isn't custom configuration related, but "Droid sans overrides my default CJK font" as summary says.
Do not ask others to use a syntax that “needs no changes” if you do not want to touch it yourself.
my bad. seems missing some wording. but I'm not saying "need no changes" totally. we need it but not necessarily to fix *this issue*. sounds off topic to me though, or was it a response on it?