https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1509973
Parag Nemade <pnemade(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproje
| |ct.org
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1504433
Bug ID: 1504433
Summary: thai-arundina-fonts-0.2.2 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: thai-arundina-fonts
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee: pwu(a)redhat.com
Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, pwu(a)redhat.com
Latest upstream release: 0.2.2
Current version/release in rawhide: 0.2.1-3.fc27
URL: http://linux.thai.net/pub/thailinux/software/fonts-sipa-arundina/
Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring
Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.
Based on the information from anitya:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/4964/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387825
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
langtable-0.0.38-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-16ed516ab2
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387825
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496761
--- Comment #17 from Bastien Nocera <bnocera(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Jeremy Bicha from comment #16)
> (In reply to Bastien Nocera from comment #15)
> > We know all this, but decided that it was the best solution for this purpose
> > already. There should be discussions about this on the Fedora Workstation
> > list, as well as in the GNOME bugzilla and/or wiki. If in doubt about any of
> > those, I'd be happy repeating those arguments on the fontconfig list, if you
> > send an email there and CC: me.
>
> 1. I don't think you've had these conversations as broadly as you remember.
<snip>
> To summarize your position since you didn't mention it here: You don't want
> to use the same emoji as Android because you see the emoji choice as a brand
> recognition opportunity. I'm not sure our users will see it the same way.
Again, not the place to discuss this. I discussed this with Allan and Jakub,
who agreed with this choice, Behdad and Akira, who both agreed to give EmojiTwo
time to be built for our purposes, which we hope would happen within the next
year.
Most of those discussions happened nearly a year ago, with much shorter
discussions around GUADEC this year to re-affirm that EmojiOne would be chosen.
Some of the discussions which I thought happened on the public fontconfig list
actually happened in private. I'm not sure why the fontconfig maintainer CC:ed
folks instead of making the discussion happen on the list.
In any case, that ship has sailed. If you want to ship something else in
Ubuntu, or Debian, it's easy enough to do. If you want to have a discussion
about the default choice, again, here is not the place.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496761
--- Comment #16 from Jeremy Bicha <jbicha(a)ubuntu.com> ---
(In reply to Bastien Nocera from comment #15)
> We know all this, but decided that it was the best solution for this purpose
> already. There should be discussions about this on the Fedora Workstation
> list, as well as in the GNOME bugzilla and/or wiki. If in doubt about any of
> those, I'd be happy repeating those arguments on the fontconfig list, if you
> send an email there and CC: me.
1. I don't think you've had these conversations as broadly as you remember.
a. https://wiki.gnome.org/Design/OS/Emoji says nothing about preferring a
particular emoji font.
b. You shut this thread down immediately:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/desktop@lists.fedoraproject.o…
c. I haven't been able to find any fontconfig list discussion of this issue.
d. This bug has been closed without hardly any discussion, and they were
closed by a fix that appears to me to be side-stepping the actual bug report
and title.
e. There was an October 23 Fedora Workstation meeting. Based on my reading of
the logs, I think it's fair to say that if it wasn't for your opinion, the team
would have decided the other direction (Noto instead of EmojiOne).
2. As far as Fedora 27 goes, it looks like the Emoji One decision is final. Ok.
I understand freezes and Fedora is welcome to make its own decisions.
3. Here are my objections:
a. You have said repeatedly (in the fontconfig commit and the October 23
meeting) that Emoji One/Two is GNOME's preferred emoji font.
b. EmojiTwo in its current form is unpackagable. Comment #14 here gives hope,
but currently that is vaporware.
Therefore, I expect many GNOME distros to be choosing Noto Color Emoji and so I
object to the characterization that this is GNOME's decision because I believe
you didn't actually talk to other GNOME distros about this.
To summarize your position since you didn't mention it here: You don't want to
use the same emoji as Android because you see the emoji choice as a brand
recognition opportunity. I'm not sure our users will see it the same way.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1496761
Bastien Nocera <bnocera(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |CLOSED
CC| |fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproj
| |ect.org,
| |i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproje
| |ct.org, mclasen(a)redhat.com,
| |pnemade(a)redhat.com
Component|gnome-themes-standard |fontconfig
Fixed In Version| |fontconfig-2.12.6-3.fc27
| |fontconfig-2.12.6-3.fc26
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Assignee|ignatenko(a)redhat.com |tagoh(a)redhat.com
Last Closed|2017-10-09 16:00:01 |2017-11-06 10:56:55
--- Comment #15 from Bastien Nocera <bnocera(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Jeremy Bicha from comment #9)
> (In reply to Bastien Nocera from comment #2)
> > I sent an upstream patch to the list about this:
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/fontconfig/2017-October/thread.html
>
> Really? Where?
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/fontconfig/commit/?id=c41c9220181b203d1cf1f643…
> I hope you don't mind me reopening this for discussion for Fedora 28,
> especially since as far as I can tell Fedora 27 doesn't include a color
> emoji font by default.
That's a bug in gnome-themes-standard, not the bug we're discussing here about
fontconfig.
> As I'm sure you're aware, newer version of the emojione font are not
> redistributable.
We already know, it's written as such in the package spec file:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/eosrei-emojione-fonts.git/tree/eosr…
> I looked at emojitwo today and it looks like it requires
> several grunt/node packages in order to build from source, but the emojitwo
> build documentation is non-existent so I may be wrong.
>
> So it's awkward for distros to package a dead font (emojione) and it's
> difficult for them to package emojitwo.
We know all this, but decided that it was the best solution for this purpose
already. There should be discussions about this on the Fedora Workstation list,
as well as in the GNOME bugzilla and/or wiki. If in doubt about any of those,
I'd be happy repeating those arguments on the fontconfig list, if you send an
email there and CC: me.
Resetting the status of the bug, as the problem in question was already fixed
in an errata.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1508201
Bug ID: 1508201
Summary: harfbuzz-1.6.3 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: harfbuzz
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee: pnemade(a)redhat.com
Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, klember(a)redhat.com,
moceap(a)hotmail.com, pnemade(a)redhat.com,
psatpute(a)redhat.com
Latest upstream release: 1.6.3
Current version/release in rawhide: 1.6.1-1.fc28
URL: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/HarfBuzz
Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring
Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.
Based on the information from anitya:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/1299/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.