[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 657849] New: Serbian glyphs for Wikipedia
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: Serbian glyphs for Wikipedia
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=657849
Summary: Serbian glyphs for Wikipedia
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: Unspecified
OS/Version: Unspecified
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: low
Component: liberation-fonts
AssignedTo: psatpute(a)redhat.com
ReportedBy: alessandroceschini.it(a)gmail.com
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: petersen(a)redhat.com,
fonts-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
psatpute(a)redhat.com, i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Classification: Fedora
Description of problem:
Hy, at the Serbian Wikipedia we are planning on supporting localized Serbian
glyphs (as opposed to standard/Russian ones) on screen by taking advantage of
the next generation of browser (like Firefox 4) compliant with OpenType
features.
What we lack is a pool of free OpenType fonts with Serbian glyphs to be
accessed through the locl feature. DejaVu is, as far as I know, the only free
font which does so (although with some bugs) but, particularly the Serif
version, can be described as ugly at best.
So, what about a new release of Liberation Fonts containing a locl table for
Serbian?
Thank you.
--
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.
6 years
[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1568394] New: fcitx-qt5 needs update for el7.5
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1568394
Bug ID: 1568394
Summary: fcitx-qt5 needs update for el7.5
Product: Fedora EPEL
Version: epel7
Component: fcitx-qt5
Severity: medium
Assignee: robinlee.sysu(a)gmail.com
Reporter: tis(a)foobar.fi
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: i18n-bugs(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
robinlee.sysu(a)gmail.com
qt5 updated on el7.5 and fcitx-qt5 needs refresh.
package: fcitx-qt5-1.2.2-1.el7.x86_64
unresolved deps:
qt5-qtbase(x86-64) = 0:5.6.2
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
6 years
[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1532523] [google-droid-fonts] rebase to latest version
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532523
--- Comment #11 from David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] <dkaspar(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Nicolas Mailhot from comment #9)
> @Jens: we should pick the latest version of each component of Droid from all
> the various android trees. Google has always been terrible at publishing
> this font, they probably have a master version somewhere internal, we only
> see the bits they deem suitable and they vary from Android release to
> release depending on the other fonts in each release and the markets they
> wish to target (it may even be that some droid bits are only in specific
> vendor branches).
>
> The font is very nice but locating its parts is a lot of work.
From what I've seen/deduced from looking at the git repository logs, the Google
Droid is no longer used as primary fonts for CJK-based glyphs. From what I've
been told, people hated those fonts.
Google is switching to different fonts in Android because of it. IIRC they are
using Noto fonts for it as a replacement. IMHO it might make sense to start
dropping support of Google Droid Fonts in favor of Google Noto, since Google
Noto is still receiving updates...
For what I need from the fonts right now is just update of Google Droid
Fallback font. It seems outdated (in regards of timestamps & sizes) compared to
version that Ghostscript needs/is using.
If we can't get the update for the Droid Fallback, then I would have to bundle
the same font in Ghostscript package (so it functions as we need), which would
be also against Fedora Packaging Guidelines (I would like to avoid that).
NOTE: Ghostscript is using the Google Droid Fallback for displaying of CJK
glyphs in case the CJK-based documents do not contain embedded fonts for the
glyphs (or the necessary fonts are not installed on the system).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
6 years, 1 month
[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1532523] [google-droid-fonts] rebase to latest version
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532523
--- Comment #10 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> ---
PS Droid Fallback is a high coverage – low quality compromise. As a rule the
same glyphs in locale-specific Droid parts will always be higher quality.
That’s why the package tries to ship as many locale-specific bits as possible
and Droid has a complex fontconfig file that mashes everything in a single
droid family making sure fallback is only used when there is no better Droid
part available.
Well, the fontconfig file is not complex as in hard, it’s complex as a bit
involved and requiring enough packager involvement to understand the fontconfig
logic instead of cargo-culting default config file templates with no
understanding.
Noto should probably benefit from the same setup, as it has the same
characteristics (wide encoding font spread over many files that need merging in
a single Noto font family by fontconfig instead of forcing users to assemple
them manually)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
6 years, 1 month
[Fedora-i18n-bugs] [Bug 1532523] [google-droid-fonts] rebase to latest version
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532523
Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|needinfo?(nicolas.mailhot@l |
|aposte.net) |
--- Comment #9 from Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot(a)laposte.net> ---
@Jens: we should pick the latest version of each component of Droid from all
the various android trees. Google has always been terrible at publishing this
font, they probably have a master version somewhere internal, we only see the
bits they deem suitable and they vary from Android release to release depending
on the other fonts in each release and the markets they wish to target (it may
even be that some droid bits are only in specific vendor branches).
The font is very nice but locating its parts is a lot of work.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
6 years, 1 month