[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#761573: debian-installer: needs fonts-lohit-guru-udeb to get proper Punjabi rendering



Package: debian-installer
Version: 20140802
Severity: important
Tags: l10n
Control: block -1 by 761570

Hi,

so we need to get a new udeb added to src:fonts-lohit-guru (filed as
#761570) and to pull it into the gtk images. In addition we need a
newer rootskel-gtk (which knows about an extra mapping). Since
there's a fallback mechanism in place, I've already uploaded
rootskel-gtk:
  https://packages.qa.debian.org/r/rootskel-gtk/news/20140914T163357Z.html

The patch for the extra udeb is attached, but I'm not tagging this
bug report with "patch", in order to avoid someone's committing it
too soon (before said udeb is in sid, or even better in testing).

Mraw,
KiBi.
>From 58dd41daa5b32753d21b0a4996d6b0bfedadcc42 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 18:24:08 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] Add fonts-lohit-guru-udeb to gtk images, fixing rendering for
 Punjabi.

---
 build/pkg-lists/gtk-common | 1 +
 debian/changelog           | 1 +
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/build/pkg-lists/gtk-common b/build/pkg-lists/gtk-common
index 6f22ca6..29bb46e 100644
--- a/build/pkg-lists/gtk-common
+++ b/build/pkg-lists/gtk-common
@@ -24,3 +24,4 @@ fonts-lklug-sinhala-udeb
 fonts-lao-udeb
 fonts-ukij-uyghur-udeb
 fonts-sil-padauk-udeb
+fonts-lohit-guru-udeb
diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog
index 60f8a11..e223560 100644
--- a/debian/changelog
+++ b/debian/changelog
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ debian-installer (2014XXXX) UNRELEASED; urgency=low
   * Drop code snippet meant to ensure every checkout would get an updated
     sources.list.udeb (with [trusted=yes]), since that was meant to be
     temporary, and that was almost 2 years ago.
+  * Add fonts-lohit-guru-udeb to gtk images, fixing rendering for Punjabi.
 
   [ Frederic Bonnard / Aurelien Jarno ]
   * Add netboot ppc64el support installing sid.
-- 
2.1.0


Reply to: