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

Re: Change of templates file in fontconfig-config



On 2023-09-04 20:56, Justin B Rye wrote:
Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
On 2023-09-04 08:19, Justin B Rye wrote:
debian-l10n-english is the one part of the debian-i18n hierarchy
where there's no work to be done; it's all the other languages
that still have the bit in parentheses.

Right. Probably the comment at the top of the file, where
debian-l10n-english is mentioned, should be altered or dropped.

Well, *most* changes to template text need to go through d-l-e on
their way to translators, this is just one where we get to take a
shortcut.

Ack.

Well, fonts-noto-core is recommended by the libreoffice binary,
which means that Noto is effectively default in Debian 12 also with
the GNOME desktop.

It's a surprisingly tenuous dependency chain for something we might
want to rely on; I didn't have fonts-noto-core installed anywhere,
probably because I had noticed how many things libreoffice pulled in
and was sceptical about any functionality I was ever going to use
requiring *both* -dejavu *and* -noto.

Wait a minute... gnome-desktop depends on libreoffice-calc, -gnome,
and -impress, but not libreoffice itself, so the Recommends: on
fonts-noto-core is bypassed.  If I ask aptitude to get ready to
install task-gnome-desktop on my testing machine (complete with
Recommends), that pulls in a vast horde of packages (it would almost
double the number of installed packages on that machine), but not one
of the extra package names begins with "fon"!  Presumably that's
another instance of upgrades keeping what's already there.

I stand corrected. My Debian testing was installed long ago and has been updated since then. And yes, libreoffice is not there. OTOH I have plasma-desktop available, so I may have mixed it up.

Anyway, currently it's hard to identify a Debian default font. Previously it was DejaVu, since fonts-dejavu-core was always(?) installed and fontconfig-config preferred DejaVu. Now fontconfig-config prefers Noto for sans-serif and serif, but fonts-noto-core is not always present. And that is the reason for the edit of the templates file which this thread was originally about.

But I think we would need a 'font expert' to help get it right.

I'm not one of those.  When people say "look at these screenshots of
how much worse it is!" I can rarely even tell which way round
"before" and "after" are meant to be...

Haha, it could have been me who said that. :)

--
Gunnar


Reply to: