Quoting Paul Wise (email@example.com): > pabs@chianamo:~$ fc-match -v 'Aboriginal Serif' | grep file > file: "/usr/share/fonts/truetype/aboriginal/AboriginalSerifREGULAR943.ttf"(s) > pabs@chianamo:~$ dpkg -S > /usr/share/fonts/truetype/aboriginal/AboriginalSerifREGULAR943.ttf > fonts-lg-aboriginal: > /usr/share/fonts/truetype/aboriginal/AboriginalSerifREGULAR943.ttf > > They are ugly because the font authors made them that way. fonts-lg-aboriginal main goal is to cover scripts for aboriginal languages or North America? So, it's perfectly understandable they are lees nice with runes (I just wonder why they even included runes). FWIW, Freefont seems to have "nice" runes. The package in Debian and Ubuntu is ttf-freefont. It is actually one of the goal of these fonts to cover as many Unicode blocks as possible. So, it's probably a better target for glyphs addition than Liberation fonts. BTW, you didn't CC the original poster to your anwswer, was it on purpose? :-) This is of course the Debian lists policy but, from the original content, I very much doubt he's subscribed to our list (but I may be wrong).
Description: Digital signature