Re: Announcing Fontconfig 2.4.92 (2.5 RC2)

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


Le mardi 06 novembre 2007 à 10:57 -0800, Keith Packard a écrit :
> On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 15:06 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> > Le lundi 05 novembre 2007 à 16:22 -0800, Keith Packard a écrit :
> > > The second release candidate for fontconfig 2.5 is released, thanks much
> > > to Behdad for fixing a bunch of bugs and providing numerous Fedora
> > > patches to improve the default configuration.
> > 
> > Before I forget (I wanted to push that for a long time and never find
> > enough time to do so), and since Bedhad started to push Fedora patches,
> > I'd like to push some configuration patches we have in Mandriva.
> Thanks!
>         <alias>
>                 <family>sans-serif</family>
>                 <prefer>
> +                       <family>BPG Glaho International</family> <!-- lat,cyr,arab,geor -->
>                         <family>Bitstream Vera Sans</family>
> Are you really meaning to replace Vera Sans as the default sans-serif face here?

I must confess this was added a long time ago (before DejaVu / Vera) by
our i18n specialist and I didn't touched it since.

I think it can be be at the end of the list.

I have another related question : we have some additional changes in our
Mandriva patch (that I didn't include it this patch) on the font
ordering and I was wondering if it was relevant for upstream :

for serif and sans-serif, we are favoring DejaVu over Bitstream Vera
(since Vera is not changing anymore, unlike DejaVu which is also
changing for latin glyphs). Should we do the same upstream ?

Related question : we are favoring free fonts (also because we aren't
enabling patented bytecode interpreter) over MS fonts, by pushing Luxi
and Nimbus over Verdana and Arial (or Andale Mono, Courier New). Do you
think it is a good idea and still needed, with Liberation fonts around
now ?

> > It is adding more fonts to 60-latin.conf, 65-non-latin.conf and
> > 69-unifont.conf. Bedhad might want to look at 65-non-latin.conf, we are
> > adding one or two Persian fonts, which might be better in
> > 65-fonts-persian.conf but I prefer to have him doing the move between
> > files. Moreover, it is adding some informations about locales impacted
> > by fonts.
> documentation is always helpful, thanks for the changes.
> I didn't appear to receive the file in UTF-8 encoding, so I'm not sure
> about some of the non-Latin names. Can you check your mailer and see
> about ensuring that the attachment isn't getting scrambled?

Strange, it looks UTF-8 to me, I've checked the mail received on the
mailing list. Moreover, we are both using evolution 2.12.0. 

I've attached a new version of the patch, done with git this time.

Frederic Crozat <fcrozat@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Attachment: 0001-Add-more-fonts-to-aliases-document-locales-using-th.patch
Description: application/mbox

Fontconfig mailing list

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Fonts]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Kernel]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Gimp Graphics Editor]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux