Frédéric WANG | 15 Jul 11:41 2016

DejaVu version 2.36 release

Dear Fonts SIG,

A new release of DejaVu was published yesterday:

Note that this release includes a new math font. Should a request be opened on for that new font or will it just be handled by the Fedora DejaVu maintainer during the upgrade to 2.36?
-- Frédéric Wang
fonts mailing list
fonts <at> <at>
Luya Tshimbalanga | 28 Mar 00:52 2016

Improving fonts spec

The current packaged template for fontpackages are out of date for the
following reasons.

- Use of obsolete "rm -fr %{buildroot} in %install inside fontpackages

- Inclusion of appdata for fonts allowing ease of detection for Gnome
Software or any appstream related applications. You can view an example on

Here is a guideline for appdata on


Luya Tshimbalanga
Graphic & Web Designer
E: luya <at>

fonts mailing list
fonts <at> <at>
Luya Tshimbalanga | 27 Mar 22:45 2016

Montserrat fonts landing on Fedora repository

Montserrat just arrived in Fedora and EPEL testing repositories. Please
test them and give karma to make them available on stable repositories.

Montserrat is now the default typeface for headline and title for Fedora
Project layout needed by Design Team. The wiki page[1] is moved to
"packaged fonts" category with inclusion of koji and pkgdb pages.


Luya Tshimbalanga
Graphic & Web Designer
E: luya <at>
fonts mailing list
fonts <at> <at>
Frédéric WANG | 19 Mar 08:19 2016

TeX Live OpenType fonts VS Fedora Technical Fonts

Dear Fonts SIG,

It was recently mentioned on the webkit-dev mailing list [1] that many
TeX Live packages for OpenType fonts can not be installed on Fedora
without also installing perl and texlive dependencies. Moreover, these
TeX Live packages do not use fontconfig to expose the installed fonts to
other applications like WebKit or Gecko browsers.

Looking at the families that can be used for math layout, TeX Live has
the following subpackages:

But only two of them are listed on the Fonts SIG wiki and have
independent packages:

I believe when version 2 of STIX is released [2] it will cover most (but
Arabic/RTL) features of XITS. However, it still makes sense to provide
packages for GUST math font families: Latin Modern (recommended for
Gecko and WebKit), TeX Gyre Bonum, TeX Gyre Pagella, TeX Gyre Schola and
TeX Gyre Termes. I would also add a recently released fork of Linux
Libertine that be used for math layout but is not included in Fedora's
TeX Live yet [3].

So would the Fonts SIG accept to have some packages for these fonts that
are separate from TeX Live?

I wanted to add them to your Font wishlist but for some reason I'm not
able to log in to the Fedora Wiki (despite the fact that I can login to
the FAS and signed the CLA).


Frédéric Wang

PS: FYI, Debian also has individual packages for STIX and Asana Math ;
and the dependency on TeX Live has recently been removed for Latin
Modern and TeX Gyre fonts [4]


fonts mailing list
fonts <at> <at>
Liam Crabbe | 28 Jan 09:24 2016

Courier Prime Fonts

I'm new to the Fonts SIG and somewhat confused on how to package a font. 
I'm interested in packaging the Courier Prime fonts for Fedora but all 
the documentation on how to do so appears to be scattered across 
multiple pages on the wiki. Any help pointing me in the right direction 
would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you!
Liam Crabbe
fonts mailing list
fonts <at> <at>
John Hardcastle | 7 Sep 17:13 2015

Fonts display problem in Libre Office for Linux

Hi everyone,

This is a request for help which might be font-related.

I switched to Fedora recently after finding Fedora 22 was the only Linux 
distribution that properly supported one of our computer support 
customer's Canon LBP-1210 laser printer (which is not supported by 
Microsoft Windows 64-bit, so our customer switched from Microsoft 
Windows to Fedora 22 64-bit.)

There is a problem with Libre Office on Linux, but not on Microsoft 
Windows.  If you open the attached PDF in LibreOffice Draw (to edit the 
PDF), type runs out to the right of the document under Linux but 
displays perfectly under Windows. Yet the PDF Viewer on Fedora 22 
displays the same PDF properly.

I am running Libre Office 5.0.1 on Windows 10 Pro 64-bit in an Oracle VM 
under Fedora 22 Linux, and Libre Office Draw displays the attached PDF 
properly.  But with Libre Office Draw on Fedora 22, type runs out the 
right side of the document making edits almost impossible.  The same 
thing happened with the previous version of Libre Office, from which I 
take it that this is a font display problem in Libre Office under Linux.

I installed Fedy and Windows fonts, but that did not help.

I'd like to be able to use Libre Office on Fedora without resorting to 
running Windows 10, if possible. Is there a simple solution to this problem?


fonts mailing list
fonts <at>
Shawn Starr | 2 Sep 00:43 2015

Packaging Hack - A typeface designed for source code

Hello Font SIG,

I've been in touch with Chris Simpkins about his Hack font, it looks really 
great for code and I use it for my konsole sessions.

Aside from submitting a .spec for review, anyone want to provide comments? Or 
if someone is packaging this already? :)


fonts mailing list
fonts <at>
hsv | 1 Sep 15:09 2015

Liberation fonts

Quote from :

There are three sets: Sans (a substitute for Arial, Albany, Helvetica, 
Nimbus Sans L, and Bitstream Vera Sans), Serif (a substitute for Times 
New Roman, Thorndale, Nimbus Roman, and Bitstream Vera Serif) and Mono 
(a substitute for Courier New, Cumberland, Courier, Nimbus Mono L, and 
Bitstream Vera Sans Mono).

How can Mono substitute for both Courier New and Bitstream Vera Sans 
Mono, when one has serif and the other not? It seems very like that set 
of attributes that are the generic font names, serif, sans-serif, 
cursive, fantasy, and monospace. They are only attributes, not disjoint 
sets. Besides Courier New that has serifs and pitch, and Bitstream Vera 
Sans Mono, which has pitch but not serifs, there is an old Selectric 
typewriter face called Script 12 pitch, which is also cursive. "Serif" 
and "sans-serif" are disjoint, and I would vouch for nothing with 
"fantasy", but "monospaced" is not disjoint with three of them--is 
"cursive" disjoint with "serif" and "sans-serif"?
fonts mailing list
fonts <at>
Alexander Ploumistos | 6 Jun 03:12 2015

New gdouros greek fonts

Hi everyone,

I have just submitted for review and created the wiki pages for
gdouros-anaktoria-fonts, gdouros-aroania-fonts and gdouros-asea-fonts.
As I have already mentioned, they are closely related to the
gdouros-alexander-fonts we already have in Fedora.

And I just realized that I've forgotten to file the bug reports
against repo-font-audit, will do right away...
fonts mailing list
fonts <at>
Alexander Ploumistos | 29 May 02:24 2015

Issues with repo-font-audit

Hello everyone,

I am the new maintainer of the gdouros-* fonts [1]. When I took over
the fonts, I was not aware of repo-font-audit (shame on me) and it was
the only check I hadn't run, but these days I had been working on
adding some more fonts from Mr. Douros and I stumbled upon the right
wiki pages, so I went along.

For quite some time, a lot of distros ship the Alexander font, but not
the closely related Anaktoria, Aroania and Asea (this one comes in
Regular, Bold, Italic and Bold Italic), which I want to include. I
wrote up all the necessary files based on the ones I had prepared for
Alexander and made the packages [2],[3],[4]. Two local builds on f21
and f22 were successful, rpmlint only whined about what it thought
were typos and I went on to submit to koji scratch builds for rawhide,
which were also successful.

And then I fed them to repo-font-audit. That gave me an error (fonts
in packages that contain non-font data), a warning (fonts that do not
pass fontlint sanity checks) and a suggestion (fonts with partial
unicode block coverage). I have uploaded the full test results at [5].

Seeing that I could not do anything for the warning and the
suggestion, I tried to figure out what was the cause of the error, but
I did not reach any solid conclusion. What is the problem? Is it the
%doc part of the file, the metadata/fontconfig files or all of them

That got me worried so, I decided to run a check against the other
gdouros fonts [6]. Of the seven fonts, repo-font-audit managed to
check only three of them as it threw some error messages as soon as it
started [7]. I looked around for the same errors and I found only a
bug report in [8] about ttfcoverage trying to divide by zero.
It was closed as irrelevant. Should I file a bug report for that? For
the other three fonts it managed to check, I got the exact same error,
warning and suggestion...

Puzzled as I was, I decided to check the liberation and the droid
fonts and to my surprise, repo-font-audit spat out the following:

P#     t3  t10  t13  t17  t20
1      ‧   2    ‧    2    ‧
2      15  15   ‧    15   6
3      ‧   1    ‧    1    1
4      6   6    ‧    6    4
5      ‧   4    ‧    4    ‧
6      ‧   4    4    4    ‧
7      ‧   4    ‧    4    ‧
8      ‧   4    ‧    4    ‧
Total  21  40   4    40   11

Among the above errors, warnings and suggestions are the three ones
that I kept getting. So, is repo-font-audit an absolutely necessary
part of the font package creation process, or is it more of an
advisory tool and we can get by with just the other checks performed
by fedora-review? Are the fontlint sanity checks from [5] worth taking

And on a slightly different topic, is it absolutely required to create
a wiki page for a font package, before it is accepted for inclusion?

Thank you for your time

fonts mailing list
fonts <at>
mayank25080562 | 14 Apr 21:34 2015