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

Tue Mar 20 08:53:55 UTC 2018

Quoting Ciaran Power (2018-03-19 22:41:16)
> 2018-03-06 22:40 GMT-03:00 Jonas Smedegaard <jonas at jones.dk>:
> > 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.
> 
> I don't see what I'm looking for in either the hinted or unhinted 
> fonts in noto-fonts on github.
> 
> 
> It seems a bunch of symbols were moved from Google's noto-fonts 
> repository into noto-fonts-alpha around commit 
> bc9353da6f625b7a47035de952c2e8fd9e3ae889 (in noto-fonts). I think this 
> is really a regression, and shouldn't have been pulled into Debian. 
> Symbols that were previously in "NotoFontsSymbols-*" are no longer 
> found in noto-fonts, but are in noto-fonts-alpha.
> 
> A list of the glyphs I am using, which are no longer found (with some
> exceptions scattered about) in the .deb (probably not the complete
> set, just what I noticed):
> ↑ U+2191 UPWARDS ARROW
> → U+2192 RIGHTWARDS ARROW
> ↓ U+2193 DOWNWARDS ARROW
> ↦ U+21A6 RIGHTWARDS ARROW FROM BAR
> ↶ U+21B6 ANTICLOCKWISE TOP SEMICIRCLE ARROW
> ⇐ U+21D0 LEFTWARDS DOUBLE ARROW
> ⇑ U+21D1 UPWARDS DOUBLE ARROW
> ⇒ U+21D2 RIGHTWARDS DOUBLE ARROW
> ⇓ U+21D3 DOWNWARDS DOUBLE ARROW
> ⇔ U+21D4 LEFT RIGHT DOUBLE ARROW
> ⇞ U+21DE UPWARDS ARROW WITH DOUBLE STROKE
> ⇟ U+21DF DOWNWARDS ARROW WITH DOUBLE STROKE
> ⇠ U+21E0 LEFTWARDS DASHED ARROW
> ⇡ U+21E1 UPWARDS DASHED ARROW
> ⇢ U+21E2 RIGHTWARDS DASHED ARROW
> ⇣ U+21E3 DOWNWARDS DASHED ARROW
> ⇥ U+21E5 RIGHTWARDS ARROW TO BAR
> ⇱ U+21F1 NORTH WEST ARROW TO CORNER
> ⇲ U+21F2 SOUTH EAST ARROW TO CORNER
> ∀ U+2200 FOR ALL
> ∂ U+2202 PARTIAL DIFFERENTIAL
> ∃ U+2203 THERE EXISTS
> ∅ U+2205 EMPTY SET
> ∇ U+2207 NABLA
> ∈ U+2208 ELEMENT OF
> − U+2212 MINUS SIGN
> ∘ U+2218 RING OPERATOR
> √ U+221A SQUARE ROOT
> ∝ U+221D PROPORTIONAL TO
> ∞ U+221E INFINITY
> ∡ U+2221 MEASURED ANGLE
> ∥ U+2225 PARALLEL TO
> ∧ U+2227 LOGICAL AND
> ∨ U+2228 LOGICAL OR
> ∩ U+2229 INTERSECTION
> ∪ U+222A UNION
> ∫ U+222B INTEGRAL
> ⊂ U+2282 SUBSET OF
> ⊥ U+22A5 UP TACK
> ⌦ U+2326 ERASE TO THE RIGHT
> ⌧ U+2327 X IN A RECTANGLE BOX
> ⌫ U+232B ERASE TO THE LEFT
> ⎀ U+2380 INSERTION SYMBOL
> ⏎ U+23CE RETURN SYMBOL
> ␣ U+2423 OPEN BOX
> ♀ U+2640 FEMALE SIGN
> ♂ U+2642 MALE SIGN
> ⚥ U+26A5 MALE AND FEMALE SIGN
> ⟨ U+27E8 MATHEMATICAL LEFT ANGLE BRACKET
> ⟩ U+27E9 MATHEMATICAL RIGHT ANGLE BRACKET
> 
> 
> I feel that Debian should go back to the previous version of the 
> NotoSansSymbols* files, but I understand that needs to be balanced 
> against the additional work/problems with packaging an older version. 
> The symbols I have listed are probably not used by many, but on the 
> other hand users probably expect a relatively complete set of symbols 
> from noto ("no tofu").
> 
> 
> For my purposes I can get what I need from the following unhinted
> files in github/noto-fonts-alpha:
> NotoSansSymbols-Regular.ttf
> NotoSansSymbols2-Regular.ttf
> NotoSansMathGX.ttf
> which is a bit more work for me, but not too bad.

Thanks for the clarification.

From your description above, it seems this issue is not simply a matter 
of picking different fonts from within same upstream source, as I had 
previously hoped, but instead a matter of upstream removal (deliberate 
or accidental) and alternate shipment of same glyphs as part of a 
_separate_ project.

It seems too cumbersome to me to try circumvbent upstream 
prograssion(/regression) by cherrypicking parts from an older release.

I welcome you to raise this as an issue upstream, ideally to make them 
correct the error, but alternatively to at least have an explanation 
from them on the reasoning for their decision - which might affect my 
opinion on the sensibility of circumventing them, time will tell...

It might make sense to package github/noto-fonts-alpha

I can suggest that you file a so-called "RFP" (request for packaging) 
bugreport if you want to encourage Debian packaging that separate font 
project - am am hesitant to take on that task myself, however, judging 
simply by tha name: Indicates being a staging area of too weak quality 
for inclusion in Debian.

I'll leave this bugreport open for now, but will likely close it as a 
wontfix depending on progress in above suggested areas.

Kind regards,

 - 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/20180320/7878e60e/attachment.sig>