Completely switch graphical installer to fonts-noto?
Hi Jonas and debian-boot,
Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> wrote:
> Since the very purpose of fonts-noto is large coverage and usage in
> embedded devices (e.g. stripping kerning values), I suspect that it may
> be beneficial to use also for other locales.
>
> Please do tell if there is interest in that, and how I can help there.
I'm unsure, if switching completely to Google fonts (fonts-noto is a Google
project, right?) is what we want, thinking about monopolism...
However, I did some tests, and I managed to get a netboot-gtk mini.iso image
built with only this font packages:
fonts-android-udeb (apparently needed for CJK languages)
fonts-noto-unhinted-udeb
For my eyes, the result is: all languages are rendered, no TOFU signs like
the ones we had in the past, when fonts where missing.
The fonts are looking different than before, but not bad IMO (speaking for
English and my mother tongue German, I would say: it's 100% readable.)
We would need to validate the quality for all languages (with the help of
translators/users (preferably) or with screenshots old <-> new).
But apart from that, at the first look it seems not that bad!
I have uploaded the resulting mini.iso (and the corresponding gtk-common file
from ..debian-installer/build/pkg-lists/) to GoFile, try it at
https://gofile.io/?c=l59HTp
Note:
With the current setup, this leads to an image growth of 10MB (when I compare
the builds here on my laptop: 75MB for an original built netboot-gtk image
as it is now configured in GIT, and 85MB for an image with only the two udebs
mentioned above).
I assume this could be reduced, if unneeded fonts are skipped from the
used udeb though. Maybe we could even reduce the image size compared to the
original size, because of less overlapping glyphs (need to be checked !).
So, what's the opinion of the team: is there any interest to move to fonts-noto?
Holger
--
Holger Wansing <hwansing@mailbox.org>
PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
Reply to: