Hi, Cyril Brulebois <k...@debian.org> wrote: > Holger Wansing <hwans...@mailbox.org> (2020-04-09): > > Cyril Brulebois <k...@debian.org> wrote: > > > Cyril Brulebois <k...@debian.org> (2020-03-28): > > > > This would be an easy way to publish updated installation images for > > > > people to toy with, and compare with the previous alpha. And I think > > > > that'd be a sensible approach (at least that's what I had in mind). > > > > > > > > Gathering the results and drawing a conclusion is what worries me a > > > > little. > > > > > > By the way, I didn't investigate this in deep but I didn't easily spot a > > > recent change regarding fonts in the few d-i packages I had in mind… I'm > > > seeing a rather different rendering (which seems rather bad at first > > > glance) with the daily build I was about to test. > > > > > > It might be a side effect of the recent fontconfig upload: > > > > > > https://tracker.debian.org/news/1113021/accepted-fontconfig-2131-3-source-all-amd64-into-unstable-unstable/ > > > > > > Attached, reference image for the languages screen for bullseye, plus a > > > screenshot for a daily build. > > > > > > If someone fancies investigating… ;) > > > > There is no point in investigating that, if we switch to fonts-noto > > anyway :-)) > > I'm not sure there's actually “no point”. A possible fontconfig issue > could be hindering your tests regarding that switch…
I fail to understand the correlations of all this, apparently. In this case, we should - at a minimum - postpone the fonts-noto switch for a later alpha? Holger -- Holger Wansing <hwans...@mailbox.org> PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
