Re: Change of templates file in fontconfig-config
Justin B Rye <justin.byam.rye@gmail.com> writes:
> Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I made a minor — but important — change to the
>> debian/fontconfig-config.templates file in the fontconfig source package:
>>
>> https://salsa.debian.org/freedesktop-team/fontconfig/-/commit/45d8eda0
>>
> Mind you, if fontconf-confontconfig-config now has a different default
> font, why do the package dependencies still have dejavu as first
> preference? If you aren't running plasma or cinnamon, almost nothing
> seems to pull in fonts-noto - not even fonts-recommended.
>
> How is a normal user doing an install expected to know what font they
> are going to be using, anyway? Previously they could say "well, I
> don't know enough about all this to want to customise anything, so
> apparently I'll need Native hinting, whatever that is"; now they need
> to *guess* that the default is some TrueType font they've never heard
> of.
>
> (When it talks about Microsoft fonts, does that mean the ones from the
> non-free msttcorefonts package that disappeared in Lenny?)
I think these comments are important (and a great illlustration of the
value of this list - as a review the message for readability as
well as correctness of the English grammar)
While the proposed edits are ok in terms of beign "correct" english,
they do make the message slightly harder to understand for most - there
is a lot of technical jargon already there that most users wont
understand.
I actually wonder why debconf is being used for these messages at all -
if there are sensibledefaults it would be better to just set those and
let the users who do care edit a file to change it.
> Template: fontconfig/hinting_type
> Type: select
> __Choices: Native,
> Autohinter, None
> Default: Native
> _Description: Font tuning method for screen (system default): Please
> select the preferred method for tuning fonts for screen
> rendering.
what does "screen" mean here? screen(1)? or "how fonts are shown on the
screen" - but that is a bit if an odd thing to say as how else are fonts
used? maybe "monitor" or "display" are better?
why is "(system default)" needed? all debconf settings are the default
(i think?)
is there a simple explanator for "font tuning"?
> Select 'Native' if you mostly use DejaVu or any of the
> Microsoft fonts. Select 'Autohinter' if you mostly use other TrueType
> fonts. Select 'None' if you want blurry text
(if it is so tied to font, why cant the hinting be done by software once
the font is in use....?)
> Template: fontconfig/hinting_style
> Type: select
> __Choices: None, Slight, Medium, Full
> Choices-C: hintnone, hintslight, hintmedium, hintfull
> Default: hintslight
> _Description: Automatic font hinting style: Please
> select the preferred automatic font hinting style to be used as the
> system default.
> .
> The hinting style is the amount of font reshaping done
> to line up to the grid.
rather unclear - what is "the grid", what does "reshaping" mean?
>
> "Slight" will make the font more fuzzy to line up to the grid but will
> be better in retaining font shape, while "Full" will be a crisp font
> that aligns well to the pixel grid but will lose a greater amount of
> font shape.
>
is "crisp" really consistent with 'losing shape'? they dont seem the
same concept to me.
is "pixel grid" different to "grid"?
> "Slight" is the default setting.
is this needed? isnt the default shown by debconf?
> To revert to the pre-2.12 behavior, select "Full".
suggest delete as presumably changed at least one stable release ago?
and if including, say why the chnage. This seems more useful for a
NEWS.Debian entry than debconf.
if really important to retain you could say "The previous default was
full [but this was changed because...]"
> Template: fontconfig/subpixel_rendering
> Type: select
> __Choices:
> Automatic, Always, Never
> Default: Automatic
> _Description: Enable
> subpixel rendering for screen: Rendering text at a subpixel level
> generally makes it look a bit better on flat (LCD) screens, but can show
> color artifacts on CRT screens. The "Automatic" choice will enable it
> only if a LCD screen is detected.
I dont think this template is needed in 2023?
(another odd use of "screen" - should it be "the screen" perhaps? or
just "enable subpixep rendering" since it's obvious that a "screen" is involved
"at a subpixel level" is a bit cryptic; i think LCD screens dont need to be
"flat" nowadays?)
> Template: fontconfig/enable_bitmaps Type: boolean Default: false
> _Description: Enable bitmapped fonts by default? By default, only
> outline fonts are used by applications which support fontconfig>
too many "by default" in here!
suggest deleting the phrsse in the first line.
is "outline" different to TrueType that is used in an earlier template?
> Outline fonts are fonts which scale well to various sizes.
> In contrast, bitmapped fonts are often lower quality.
i wonder if this is true as written. "various" could be read as me
meaning "a fixed number", isnt the point that outline fonts can be
scaled to arbitrary sizes while a bitmap font is designed for one exact
size only. Quality is maybe an overloaded term - presumably a bitmap
could be higher quality than an outline font (designed for a different
size, or just badly designed) but bitmaps are much less flexible?
> Enabling this option will affect the systemwide default; this and many
> other fontconfig options may be enabled or disabled on a per-user
> basis.
Helpful to say how, eg "by editing ~/.whatever" or "as described in
<document/man page>". Is per-user choice really limited to ""enabled or
disabled" or would "changed" be shorter and more accurate?
Reply to: