Thanks for your reply, Justin!
On 2023-09-04 08:19, Justin B Rye wrote:
Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
I made a minor — but important — change to the
debian/fontconfig-config.templates file in the fontconfig source
package:
https://salsa.debian.org/freedesktop-team/fontconfig/-/commit/45d8eda0
That created fuzzy items in the PO files. I saw the reference to
this list in the file, so this is a heads-up. Not sure how a
change like this is expected to be further processed.
debian-l10n-english is the one part of the debian-i18n hierarchy
where there's no work to be done; it's all the other languages that
still have the bit in parentheses.
Right. Probably the comment at the top of the file, where
debian-l10n-english is mentioned, should be altered or dropped.
Maybe this is a case where you can safely pick out and delete those
bits and declare it unfuzzied, without needing to be fluent in Urdu
and so on?
Unless somebody objects, I may do that.
I'm Ccing d-i18n for any input.
Thanks for broadening the audience.
Mind you, if fontconf-confontconfig-config now has a different
default font, why do the package dependencies still have dejavu as
first preference?
That's true in Debian 12, but not in testing:
https://salsa.debian.org/freedesktop-team/fontconfig/-/commit/5aa10dde
If you aren't running plasma or cinnamon, almost nothing seems to
pull in fonts-noto - not even fonts-recommended.
Well, fonts-noto-core is recommended by the libreoffice binary, which
means that Noto is effectively default in Debian 12 also with the GNOME
desktop.
How is a normal user doing an install expected to know what font
they are going to be using, anyway? Previously they could say "well,
I don't know enough about all this to want to customise anything, so
apparently I'll need Native hinting, whatever that is"; now they
need to *guess* that the default is some TrueType font they've never
heard of.
(When it talks about Microsoft fonts, does that mean the ones from
the non-free msttcorefonts package that disappeared in Lenny?)
Those are good questions/thoughts.
The DejaVu -> Noto change in the font configuration was made upstream,
and hit Debian with fontconfig 2.14. There were reactions:
https://bugs.debian.org/1028643
https://bugs.debian.org/1029390
https://bugs.debian.org/1029237
But nobody addressed those directly, and Debian 12 was released with
some ambiguity. Debian was caught off guard.
I attended to the fontconfig package only recently, and have taken a
couple of steps to handle the situation. One thing is that the default
monospace font was changed back to DejaVu recently, so now we have:
sans-serif Noto Sans
serif Noto Serif
monospace DejaVu Sans Mono
It is apparently likely that debian/fontconfig-config.templates will
undergo further changes soon, so possibly I should wait a bit with
dealing with those PO files.
But I think we would need a 'font expert' to help get it right.
--
Rgds,
Gunnar Hjalmarsson
