[Bug 285561] Review Request: wqy-unibit-fonts - a dual-width bitmap font for maximum unicode coverage

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: wqy-unibit-fonts - a dual-width bitmap font for maximum unicode coverage


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=285561





------- Additional Comments From fangqq@xxxxxxxxx  2007-09-14 20:09 EST -------
I found a bug in the bdf merging scripts and now there are 80 more glyphs added
to the font. I bumped the minor version number and rename the submitted package
to 1.1.0-1.

the new files can be found at
Spec URL: http://wenq.org/release/unibit/wqy-unibit-fonts.spec
SRPM URL: http://wenq.org/release/unibit/wqy-unibit-fonts-1.1.0-1.src.rpm

the spec file was patched, and the README file was cleaned.

To your questions, gzip the font is not preferred. There has been numerous
report on the performance degradation using the gzipped wqy-bitmapsong in the
past, for example, http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=384149

For big bitmap fonts (with more than 10000 glyphs), gzip the pcf file will
produce noticeable latency when firefox loading webpages, causing the CPU load
surging to 100%. If space is not a big issue, leaving the font un-zipped is
preferred. Need to mention, the best bitmap format is SFNT TTF/OTF, in this
case, it will only take <1M and has faster rendering. however, currently
freetype/fontconfig does not support this format very well, please see 
http://www.nabble.com/SFNT-TTF-support-in-fontconfig-tf2132908.html#a5886457

On upstream version number, it is true that our current numbering scheme is
different from Fedora's and some others. The last number is an accumulative
major release number, rather than the update number for a particular release.
However, to change this may cause some other problems, such as nightly build and
cvs. So, let's leave it for now, and for packages submitted to Fedora, simply
ignore the last number from upstream and use the update number instead.


-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]