https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080
Bug ID: 2093080 Summary: Default fonts for Arabic do not match the font packages list Product: Fedora Version: 36 Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: fontconfig Severity: medium Assignee: tagoh@redhat.com Reporter: awilliam@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: ajax@redhat.com, caillon+fedoraproject@gmail.com, fonts-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org, gnome-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org, i18n-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org, mclasen@redhat.com, pnemade@redhat.com, rhughes@redhat.com, rstrode@redhat.com, sandmann@redhat.com, tagoh@redhat.com Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
There's a test case:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_i18n_default_fonts
which requires checking the default fonts for various languages against a list, http://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/fonts/fc-test.sh .
The current default fonts for Arabic installs do not match the list. The list states sans should be DejaVu Sans, serif should be FreeSerif or MPH 2B Damase, and mono should be DejaVu Sans Mono. These may have been changed recently, as our openQA reference text file expects them to be Noto Naskh Arabic (for both sans and serif?) and PakType Naskh Basic for mono.
In any case, what we actually see doesn't match either the list or the openQA reference file. We see "Noto Sans Arabic" and "PakType Naqsh" in the output from the test, I think for serif (yes really) and monospace respectively.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080
Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard| |openqa
--- Comment #1 from Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com --- This is the actual output we get, for sans, serif and monospace respectively:
NotoSansArabic-VF.ttf: "Noto Sans Arabic" "Regular" NotoNaskhArabic-VF.ttf: "Noto Naskh Arabic" "Regular" PakTypeNaqsh.ttf: "PakType Naqsh" "Regular"
That doesn't match anything I can see in the list. I gave the wrong link for the list, sorry - it's https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/fonts/fedora-current-defaultfonts.html .
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080
--- Comment #2 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- Apparently that testcase is outdated. the latest one would be https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/fonts/status/36.html though, it isn't reflected packages from langpacks. I'm updating the list for other purpose. sorry for inconvenience.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080
Red Hat One Jira (issues.redhat.com) redhat-one-jira@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link ID| |Red Hat Issue Tracker | |FC-582
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080
Lukas Ruzicka lruzicka@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |lruzicka@redhat.com Flags| |needinfo?(tagoh@redhat.com)
--- Comment #3 from Lukas Ruzicka lruzicka@redhat.com --- (In reply to Akira TAGOH from comment #2)
Apparently that testcase is outdated. the latest one would be https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/fonts/status/36.html though, it isn't reflected packages from langpacks. I'm updating the list for other purpose. sorry for inconvenience.
Hello, coming back to this bug once again. We have this test failing again because it seems that the font list on the system differs from what we expected.
What the system tells us: Sans -> NotoSansArabic-VF.ttf: "Noto Sans Arabic" "Regular" Serif -> NotoNaskhArabic-VF.ttf: "Noto Naskh Arabic" "Regular" Mono -> Vazirmatn[wght].ttf: "Vazirmatn" "Regular"
What the table provides and what we expect: Sans -> NotoNaskhArabic-VF.ttf "Noto Naskh Arabic" "Regular" Serif -> NotoNaskhArabic-VF.ttf: "Noto Naskh Arabic" "Regular" Mono -> PakTypeNaskhBasic.ttf: "PakType Naskh Basic" "Regular"
Can you tell us, what the correct combination is for Fedora 37 and if the tables are correct, why there are different defaults on the installed system?
thanks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080
--- Comment #4 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- I have updated the test case. please check again.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080
Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(tagoh@redhat.com) |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080
Lukas Ruzicka lruzicka@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(tagoh@redhat.com)
--- Comment #5 from Lukas Ruzicka lruzicka@redhat.com --- So, I have checked again and I am still getting different results than expected.
On a freshly installed system, I am getting these defaults:
NotoSansArabic-VF.ttf: "Noto Sans Arabic" "Regular" NotoNaskhArabic-VF.ttf: "Noto Naskh Arabic" "Regular" Vazirmatn[wght].ttf: "Vazirmatn" "Regular"
However, the table linked to the suggested test case (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_i18n_default_fonts) located at https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/fonts/status/current.html shows the following:
Noto Sans Arabic Noto Naskh Arabic KacstBook
While Serif and Sans font defaults do match, there is a difference in the Mono default Vazirmatn versus KacstBook.
Please, make sure the correct fonts are used on the system or (if you wish so) update the table to match the reality.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080
Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(tagoh@redhat.com) |
--- Comment #6 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- How did you install that?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080
--- Comment #7 from Lukas Ruzicka lruzicka@redhat.com --- The Server DVD is used to start the Anaconda in which I choose to install Fedora Workstation, after the installation the system is rebooted and the test is performed.
The test run is here: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1540613
You can see the Video from that test here: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1540613/video?filename=video.ogv
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080
--- Comment #8 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- Well, the table was generated with all the langpacks installed. if the result of the test case is different, it would means there are some font packages which affects default fonts for other languages accidentally. that is a bug in those fonts packages.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080
--- Comment #9 from Ben Cotton bcotton@redhat.com --- This message is a reminder that Fedora Linux 36 is nearing its end of life. Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora Linux 36 on 2023-05-16. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a 'version' of '36'.
Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, change the 'version' to a later Fedora Linux version. Note that the version field may be hidden. Click the "Show advanced fields" button if you do not see it.
Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora Linux 36 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora Linux, you are encouraged to change the 'version' to a later version prior to this bug being closed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080
Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|36 |rawhide
--- Comment #10 from Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com --- Still an issue in current Rawhide.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080
--- Comment #11 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- See for example current https://tagoh.fedorapeople.org/fonts/status/38-diff-comps-vs-langpacks.html So the results vary depending whether the related langpacks are installed or not.
We have some major plans in the pipeline for how we install default fonts for F39, so it may be better to revisit this thereafter (during this cycle).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080
--- Comment #12 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Also for QA release testing it might be enough to focus mainly on Sans results across all languages for now? This could then be extended to Serif once that hopefully stabilizes (for a lot of scripts Mono is less meaningful anyway).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080
--- Comment #13 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- Sorry for taking a long time on it. I have updated https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_i18n_default_fonts too. Particularly speaking of this case, paktype-naskh-basic-fonts (and kacst-book-fonts in f38 too) affected vazirmatn-fonts which is our default font. we need a fix for them not to make them higher priority than vazirmatn-fonts.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080
Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-03-07 11:09:50
--- Comment #15 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- Please use this instead: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_default_font_installation
No difference is reported for ar locale on f40:
$ fontquery-diff -l ar 40 * Comparison between 40 and local * This may take some time... Language default sans default serif default mono Arabic(ar) Noto Sans Arabic Noto Naskh Arabic Vazirmatn
FWIW if there are some difference detected, it looks like:
$ fontquery-diff -l he 40 * Comparison between 40 and local * This may take some time... Language default sans default serif default mono - Hebrew(he) Noto Sans Hebrew Noto Serif Hebrew Noto Sans Hebrew + Liberation Mono
As known as Bug#2267629
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080
Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(tagoh@redhat.com)
--- Comment #16 from Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com --- Thanks for that, but now it's a bit confusing. We have both https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_i18n_default_fonts and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_default_font_installation . Does QA:Testcase_default_font_installation completely replace QA:Testcase_i18n_default_fonts ? Should I update the validation pages to use the newer test, and rewrite the openQA test to do what it says?
Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080
Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(tagoh@redhat.com) |
--- Comment #17 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- Yes, please! Sorry for confusing.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080
--- Comment #18 from Adam Williamson awilliam@redhat.com --- OK. How does this tool work, exactly? It seems to be comparing the local system against a container image, right? How is the container image generated? How do we make sure that *it* is correct? I'm worried about a situation where a bug is introduced into Fedora somehow which will cause *both* the reference container image *and* the clean installed system that openQA tests from to be wrong, in which case they'd match and the script would report no error?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2093080
--- Comment #19 from Akira TAGOH tagoh@redhat.com --- Yes, this assumes that default-fonts metapackages from langpacks provides expected default fonts. If fontquery reports some difference between local and container image, that would means some font packages which may be pulled in by other deps affected default fonts. I'd say that may be more or less a bug.
For example, taking a look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267629, we see difference for Hebrew monospace which isn't expected in langpacks. If we use liberation-mono-fonts as default monospace for Hebrew, we need to update langpacks. If we want to see Noto Sans Hebrew as default monospace, we should add substitute config in google-noto-fonts then.
For more details of fontquery, the container image is generated by https://github.com/fedora-i18n/fontquery/blob/main/fontquery/data/Containerf... and https://github.com/fedora-i18n/fontquery/blob/main/fontquery/scripts/fontque... for real package installation. There are three variants for images though, minimal would be the same to what we usually have on the system. others are basically to test consistency in config proactively.
The container images are supposed to be updated weekly by GitHub Actions. If something failed, images won't be updated.
As this relies on langpacks, we need to pay more attentions on updating langpacks to avoid breakage right.
i18n-bugs@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com