[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 475818] New: iok menu entry does not follow GNOME HIG
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: iok menu entry does not follow GNOME HIG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475818
Summary: iok menu entry does not follow GNOME HIG
Product: Fedora
Version: 10
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: low
Component: iok
AssignedTo: pnemade(a)redhat.com
ReportedBy: jonrob.one(a)googlemail.com
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: pnemade(a)redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs(a)redhat.com
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora
Description of problem:
Currently the iok menu entry under the Applications > Accessories menu is
simply "iok". Not very useful to anyone who doesn't know what this is already.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Fedora 10 Desktop Live CD
Expected results:
Should probably be something like "iok Onscreen Keyboard"
Additional info:
see:
http://library.gnome.org/devel/hig-book/stable/desktop-application-menu.h...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 6 months
[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 477127] RFE: Disable most language packs by default
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477127
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |petersen(a)redhat.com
--- Comment #9 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2008-12-22 01:28:17 EDT ---
I think and petition again that langpacks be subpackaged and not all installed.
There really is no reason why all users are forced to download the full set of
langpacks. For F11 I want to make a yum langpacks plugin should take care of
getting langpacks installed automatically for a particular language - so then
the previous argument against subpackaging that the user's langpack might not
get installed would no longer hold. Please do consider this again for F11.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 6 months
[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 466193] Review Request: alee-fonts - Korean TrueType Fonts
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=466193
--- Comment #5 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> 2008-12-21 16:43:55 EDT ---
[This is a simplified version of the message sent to every package maintainer
that ships TTF/OTF/Type1 fonts in Fedora.]
Our font packaging guidelines have now changed. New font package submissions
must now be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel
package:
– http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
– http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template
– http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts
It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though
it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rule...
has been submitted for FPC and FESCO approval today.
The new templates should make the creation of font packages easy and safe.
The following packages have already been converted by their packager in
fedora-devel and can serve as examples:
❄ abyssinica-fonts
❄ andika-fonts
❄ apanov-heuristica-fonts
❄ bitstream-vera-fonts
❄ charis-fonts
❄ dejavu-fonts
❄ ecolier-court-fonts
❄ edrip-fonts
❄ gfs-ambrosia-fonts
❄ gfs-artemisia-fonts
❄ gfs-baskerville-fonts
❄ gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts
❄ gfs-bodoni-fonts
❄ gfs-complutum-fonts
❄ gfs-didot-classic-fonts
❄ gfs-didot-fonts
❄ gfs-eustace-fonts
❄ gfs-fleischman-fonts
❄ gfs-garaldus-fonts
❄ gfs-gazis-fonts
❄ gfs-jackson-fonts
❄ gfs-neohellenic-fonts
❄ gfs-nicefore-fonts
❄ gfs-olga-fonts
❄ gfs-porson-fonts
❄ gfs-solomos-fonts
❄ gfs-theokritos-fonts
❄ nafees-web-naskh-fonts
❄ stix-fonts
❄ yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts
The new spec templates have been designed to be easy to update to from the
previous guidelines, and to remove complexity from font packages. To help new
package creation the fontpackages-devel package has been made available in
Fedora 9 and 10.
If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them
on:
fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 6 months
[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 462711] Review Request: Mothanna-fonts - Mothanna-fonts from Arabeyes.org
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462711
--- Comment #4 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> 2008-12-21 16:43:53 EDT ---
[This is a simplified version of the message sent to every package maintainer
that ships TTF/OTF/Type1 fonts in Fedora.]
Our font packaging guidelines have now changed. New font package submissions
must now be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel
package:
– http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
– http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template
– http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts
It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though
it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rule...
has been submitted for FPC and FESCO approval today.
The new templates should make the creation of font packages easy and safe.
The following packages have already been converted by their packager in
fedora-devel and can serve as examples:
❄ abyssinica-fonts
❄ andika-fonts
❄ apanov-heuristica-fonts
❄ bitstream-vera-fonts
❄ charis-fonts
❄ dejavu-fonts
❄ ecolier-court-fonts
❄ edrip-fonts
❄ gfs-ambrosia-fonts
❄ gfs-artemisia-fonts
❄ gfs-baskerville-fonts
❄ gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts
❄ gfs-bodoni-fonts
❄ gfs-complutum-fonts
❄ gfs-didot-classic-fonts
❄ gfs-didot-fonts
❄ gfs-eustace-fonts
❄ gfs-fleischman-fonts
❄ gfs-garaldus-fonts
❄ gfs-gazis-fonts
❄ gfs-jackson-fonts
❄ gfs-neohellenic-fonts
❄ gfs-nicefore-fonts
❄ gfs-olga-fonts
❄ gfs-porson-fonts
❄ gfs-solomos-fonts
❄ gfs-theokritos-fonts
❄ nafees-web-naskh-fonts
❄ stix-fonts
❄ yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts
The new spec templates have been designed to be easy to update to from the
previous guidelines, and to remove complexity from font packages. To help new
package creation the fontpackages-devel package has been made available in
Fedora 9 and 10.
If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them
on:
fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 6 months
[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 461139] Review Request: arabeyes-thabit-fonts
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=461139
--- Comment #34 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> 2008-12-21 16:43:51 EDT ---
[This is a simplified version of the message sent to every package maintainer
that ships TTF/OTF/Type1 fonts in Fedora.]
Our font packaging guidelines have now changed. New font package submissions
must now be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel
package:
– http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/fontpackages
– http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template
– http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts
It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though
it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rule...
has been submitted for FPC and FESCO approval today.
The new templates should make the creation of font packages easy and safe.
The following packages have already been converted by their packager in
fedora-devel and can serve as examples:
❄ abyssinica-fonts
❄ andika-fonts
❄ apanov-heuristica-fonts
❄ bitstream-vera-fonts
❄ charis-fonts
❄ dejavu-fonts
❄ ecolier-court-fonts
❄ edrip-fonts
❄ gfs-ambrosia-fonts
❄ gfs-artemisia-fonts
❄ gfs-baskerville-fonts
❄ gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts
❄ gfs-bodoni-fonts
❄ gfs-complutum-fonts
❄ gfs-didot-classic-fonts
❄ gfs-didot-fonts
❄ gfs-eustace-fonts
❄ gfs-fleischman-fonts
❄ gfs-garaldus-fonts
❄ gfs-gazis-fonts
❄ gfs-jackson-fonts
❄ gfs-neohellenic-fonts
❄ gfs-nicefore-fonts
❄ gfs-olga-fonts
❄ gfs-porson-fonts
❄ gfs-solomos-fonts
❄ gfs-theokritos-fonts
❄ nafees-web-naskh-fonts
❄ stix-fonts
❄ yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts
The new spec templates have been designed to be easy to update to from the
previous guidelines, and to remove complexity from font packages. To help new
package creation the fontpackages-devel package has been made available in
Fedora 9 and 10.
If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them
on:
fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 6 months
[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 472146] New: ibus-gtk cannot be installed multilib
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: ibus-gtk cannot be installed multilib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472146
Summary: ibus-gtk cannot be installed multilib
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: ibus
AssignedTo: phuang(a)redhat.com
ReportedBy: petersen(a)redhat.com
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: phuang(a)redhat.com, fedora-i18n-bugs(a)redhat.com
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora
Description of problem:
ibus-gtk requires libibus-gtk.so which is in the main ibus package. ibus.i386
and ibus.x86_64 conflict therefore ibus-gtk.i386 cannot be installed on the
x86_64 system and ibus-gtk cannot be used with 32bit applications.
How reproducible:
every time
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install Fedora on x86_64
2. Try to install ibus-gtk.i386
Actual results:
2. conflict between ibus.i386 and ibus.x86_64
Expected results:
2. libibus-gtk should be packaged in a package which can be installed multilib
(e.g. ibus-libs).
Additional info:
Additional problem is that currently ibus is multilib not ibus-gtk which is
wrong.
(It seems only ibus-x11 is linked to libibus-gtk.so.0.)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 6 months
[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 474989] New: Upgrade Translate Toolkit to latest 1.2.1 release
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Upgrade Translate Toolkit to latest 1.2.1 release
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474989
Summary: Upgrade Translate Toolkit to latest 1.2.1 release
Product: Fedora
Version: 10
Platform: All
URL: http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_i
d=644820&group_id=91920
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: low
Component: translate-toolkit
AssignedTo: dwayne(a)translate.org.za
ReportedBy: dwayne(a)translate.org.za
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: roozbeh(a)gmail.com, dwayne(a)translate.org.za,
fedora-i18n-bugs(a)redhat.com
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora
Description of problem:
>From the 1.2.1 release notes:
Highlights:
* A new tool, pretranslate, backported from trunk. Read more here:
http://translate.sourceforge.netw/wiki/toolkit/pretranslate
* New converter: The first testing releases of odf2xliff and xliff2odf as part
of our project to make ODF files translatable with XLIFF files. Make sure you
have at least Python 2.4 and an up to date version of lxml.
http://translate.sourceforge.netw/wiki/toolkit/odf2xliff
Bugfixes:
* We now generate correct MO files on 64 bit systems (bug 575)
* Properly handle DONT_TRANSLATE comments in Mozilla properties files (bug
619)
* Some fixes in the handling of Mozilla DTD files.
* An option to optionally not use HTML tidy with po2html
* Reliability improvements to statistics that should improve things for Pootle
* Some tweaks for certain Indic languages to disable capitalisation checks.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 6 months