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

Re: Default font: Transition from DejaVu to Noto

Quoting Gunnar Hjalmarsson (2023-09-13 21:28:00)
> Hi Fabian,
> On 2023-09-12 08:24, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> > as has already been stated elsewhere, fontconfig upstream's move to
> > Noto as the default font has most probably not been done for
> > aesthetical reasons. That is, it is not the "most beautiful font"
> > that people "like better" then DejaVu, but the single usable fallback
> > font with the widest glyph coverage.
> That might be true.
> > However, I think that the acceptance - or rather lack thereof - of
> > the Noto fonts in Debian has indeed to do with the way they are
> > currently packaged. There is no pendant to the fonts-dejavu-core
> > package which only installs the generic serif and sans-serif flavors.
> > Instead, even the fonts-noto-core package installs a full pack of 268
> > (!) font files. This is discussed in detail in #983291 [1].
> The way they are packaged is absolutely a restriction. How important 
> restriction it is depends on what you want to achieve.
> If I recall it correctly, the primary suggestion in that bug report is 
> to split fonts-noto-core into an LCG and an "other" package.

Perhaps the primary suggestion, but not the expected future:  I maintain
the package fonts-noto, and what you refer to is the opinion of Fabian,
who disagrees with my views on how to maintain that package.

Also, the referenced bugreport is about pain of selecting fonts, and
that issue is better addressed in font pickers than by avoiding to
install fonts.  Notably, the very purpose of the Noto font is to achieve
"no tofu" so it is counter to the purpose of that font to omit
installing some of its families.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
 * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: signature

Reply to: