[Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#911705: Bug#911705: #911705 [l10n|gu] debian-installer: fonts broken for Gujarati

[Holger Wansing]

Hi,

Jonas Smedegaard <jonas at jones.dk> wrote:
> Quoting Holger Wansing (2018-12-07 14:15:32)
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Jonas Smedegaard <jonas at jones.dk> wrote:
> > > Quoting Holger Wansing (2018-12-07 08:46:37)
> > > > Jonas Smedegaard <jonas at jones.dk> wrote:
> > > > > A quick search for samples led me to 
> > > > > https://fontinfo.opensuse.org/fonts/NotoSansGujaratiRegular.html 
> > > > > and 
> > > > > https://fontinfo.opensuse.org/fonts/NotoSerifGujaratiRegular.html 
> > > > > which (especially when zoomed in and comparing the largest 
> > > > > samples) show slight difference e.g. in the "middle" glyf (to me 
> > > > > looking like an elefant at a lake with a candle on its head...)
> [...]
> > > > There is something going wrong with my font selection patch in 
> > > > rootskel-gtk, it has no effect at all. Don't know what I am doing 
> > > > wrong.
> > > > No matter which variant of
> > > >          FONT_NAME="Noto Sans Gujarati"
> > > >          FONT_NAME="Noto Sans Gujarati UI"
> > > >          FONT_NAME="Noto Serif Gujarati"
> > > > I use, the used font is always the same.
> > > 
> > > Did you see my comments on that above?  Are you sure the differences 
> > > are not simply _extremely_ small?
> > 
> > Yes, that's probably possible. I need to validate this.
> 
> Yes, please do.
> 
> 
> > Interestingly, when I don't set at all which font to use for gu, I get 
> > the same result, at least at a first glance: I see the glyphs which 
> > can be seen on the screenshots you got. In contrary, when I build an 
> > installer image without the noto-fonts-unhinted-udeb package included, 
> > I get the TOFU placeholder signs inserted for all gu character.
> > That makes me think that font selection via the gtk-set-font script 
> > does not work here for whatever reason and some default is selected.
> 
> That does not explain the elefant-at-lake-with-candle-on-head glyph in 
> OpenSUSE samples being slightly different shape between Sans and Serif!
> 
> I recommend to prioritize close examination over wild speculation.

Yes, you are right.

And in fact, Kartik wrote me that the screenshots I sent with
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=911705#55
are all fine, but Noto Serif Gujarati is the best.
Kartik is fine with my request for forwarding his mail, so here it is:





Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 19:30:56 +0530
From: Kartik Mistry <kartik at debian.org>
To: hwansing at mailbox.org
Subject: Re: [debian-installer] Gujarati not usable, font broken or missing


On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 7:12 PM Holger Wansing <hwansing at mailbox.org> wrote:
> may I get your attention on bug #915825:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=915825.

Hi,

Sorry for ignoring this long time and thanks a lot for your work on
this! I was suppose to reply this and then had to move home in hurry
:/

> As I wrote there, I cannot see any difference on the three fonts
> "Noto Sans Gujarati", "Noto Sans Gujarati UI" and "Noto Serif Gujarati" in
> those screenshots.
> Can you?
> If yes, which one is best?

You can go ahead with any of these. All seems working fine. However,
Noto Serif Gujarati seems the best.

Thanks again!

-- 
Kartik Mistry | IRC: kart_
{0x1f1f, kartikm}.wordpress.com





-- 
Holger Wansing <hwansing at mailbox.org>
PGP-Finterprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508  3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076