[Pkg-fonts-devel] Bug#892226: Bug#892226: fonts-noto-unhinted: mathematical and arrow symbols missing, that existed previously

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Ciarán Power (2018-03-07 01:00:27)
> I used the "Noto Sans Symbols" font last year (I think on Debian stretch, but I'm not sure) to generate png output using libmakick++. It worked fine for various arrow and mathematical symbols e.g.:
> the integral symbol: ∫ (U+222B INTEGRAL)
> rightwards double arrow: ⇒ (U+21D2 RIGHTWARDS DOUBLE ARROW)
> 
> I wanted to make some changes, and noticed that I now get empty rectangles in my output, where I had symbols before.
> 
> I tried using "gnome-thumbnail-font" and "font-manager" to search for these symbols, but was unable to find them.
> 
> I looked through the archive of fonts-noto on snapshot.debian.org*. fonts-noto-unhinted_20161116-1_all.deb seems to contain all the symbols I was using in "NotoSansSymbols-Regular.ttf". The current symbols ttf (NotoSansSymbols-Regular & NotoSansSymbols2-Regular) don't seem to contain them.
> 
> *http://snapshot.debian.org/archive/debian/20171029T215600Z/pool/main/f/fonts-noto/
> 
> 
> I think this was broken by commit bc9353da6f625b7a47035de952c2e8fd9e3ae889 in https://github.com/googlei18n/noto-fonts. I don't understand how google's noto-fonts is organized, but it seems that a number of useful symbols were dropped in this commit.
> 
> 
> These are my installed noto fonts:
> ii  fonts-noto-hinted                             20171026-2                          all          "No Tofu" font families with large Unicode coverage (hinted)
> ii  fonts-noto-mono                               20171026-2                          all          "No Tofu" monospaced font family with large Unicode coverage
> ii  fonts-noto-unhinted                           20171026-2                          all          "No Tofu" font families with large Unicode coverage (unhinted)

Hi Ciarán,

Thanks for a well-written bugreport!

Upstream collection of Noto font files include some available both 
hinted and unhinted, and my packaging routines for Debian simply skips 
the unhinted files where both hinted and unhinted exists, by the 
assumptions that the unhinted files contain no additional information 
but are only slimmed down versions of the hinted ones.  Maybe that 
assumpltion is wrong.

Since you mention previously using unhinted fonts, could you please try 
fetch the current _unhinted_ fonts from upstream and check if the 
symbols are missing there as well?  If so, then we should maybe consider 
packaging the unhinted fonts too.


 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20180307/bd5ec5cc/attachment.sig>