Hi Gunnar,
Am 2023-08-19 16:04, schrieb Gunnar Hjalmarsson:
Another question is if the Noto Sans Mono deficiency is important
enough to motivate a Debian level change in this respect. I don't know.
@Fabian, I sent this reply to you as well in the hope to broaden the
discussion a bit.
thanks for asking my opinion!
Well, to be honest, the first thing I did after the change of the
default monospace font in fontconfig was to manually change my terminal
font back to DejaVu Sans Mono (I use FiraCode in my text editor anyway,
so no need to change anythere there). I just can't stand the look of the
Noto font family, and Noto Mono in particular.
However, I don't think that the upstream change to prefer Noto Mono over
DejaVu Sans Mono was a decision based on aesthetics, but on sheer number
of available glyphs. I guess they want to make sure that the default
font chosen is the one that's available for the most script types.
However, we, in Debian, as a distribution, have all the rights to aim
for the most aesthetically pleasing view of our default installation and
thus I support the change back to DejaVu Sans Mono as the default
monospace font. This, and we already support a localized installation
and install some additional font packages based on the locale set during
D-I. So, in the end, we always end up with more than just the default
font, and thus can prefer one that "looks better" and gets supported by
other fonts for additional glyph coverage.
Cheers,
- Fabian
