Re: bslib and rmarkdown update
Minor update with source:
In Debian:
Roboto https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/fonts-roboto
Ubuntu https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/fonts-ubuntu
Open Sans https://packages.debian.org/sid/fonts-open-sans
Lato https://packages.debian.org/sid/fonts-lato
Cabin Sketch https://packages.debian.org/sid/fonts-cabinsketch
In Debian but should ideally be packaged separately due to large size
of texlive-fonts-extra and current policy:
Montserrat, Nunito, Raleway, Source Sans Pro: texlive-fonts-extra
Need Debian package (all have open licences):
Nunito Sans https://github.com/googlefonts/NunitoSans
Inter https://github.com/rsms/inter/
News Cycle https://launchpad.net/newscycle
Neucha https://typetype.org/wp-content/uploads/neucha.zip
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 7:13 AM Andreas Tille <andreas@fam-tille.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> thanks a lot for your investigation. This is extremely helpful.
>
> Am Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 08:50:08PM -0400 schrieb Eric Brown:
> > Hi again,
> >
> > I tried to see what happens when the woff files are deleted from bslib.
> >
> > I cloned the bslib git, deleted the contents of the font folder, built
> > the R package locally, then tried to render an R markdown document
> > that uses a bslib theme (minty).
> > It fails with an error message (below).
> >
> > pandoc: /tmp/Rtmp1sYpTM/bslib-ca23be8b2c03436a7d75cedd4667b7ed/fonts/JTUSjIg1_i6t8kCHKm45xW0.woff:
> > openBinaryFile: does not exist (No such file or directory)
> > Error : pandoc document conversion failed with error 1
> > Error: callr subprocess failed: pandoc document conversion failed with error 1
> > Type .Last.error.trace to see where the error occurred
>
> Seems we need the Montserrat font from texlive-fonts-extra. But there
> are no *.woff files. Thus I guess we need to convert the proper font
> from there to woff format - but I have no idea at all how to do this.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Andreas.
>
> >
> > Best,
> > Eric
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 11:39 AM Eric Brown <eb@ericebrown.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Andreas,
> > >
> > > I can at least identify which .woff files correspond to which fonts,
> > > that is possible with grep. Here's the output:
> > > https://gist.github.com/eebrown/95615fc35af364bd0fae09a69273dbdf
> > >
> > > I think deleting the .woff files and seeing if the fonts render
> > > properly when they are installed at the system level is reasonable but
> > > I too am not sure exactly how to try out all the fonts.
> > >
> > > If that doesn't work, I guess it would be a matter of symlinking files
> > > to replace the .woff files. This might require a step to derive the
> > > .woff wiles in the format expected by bslib.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 9:44 AM Andreas Tille <andreas@fam-tille.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Eric,
> > > >
> > > > Am Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 06:42:59AM -0400 schrieb Eric Brown:
> > > > > To update, I found that a few more are packaged in texlive-fonts-extra (
> > > > > https://packages.debian.org/buster/texlive-fonts-extra)
> > > > >
> > > > > Roboto https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/fonts-roboto
> > > > > Ubuntu https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/fonts-ubuntu
> > > > > Open Sans https://packages.debian.org/sid/fonts-open-sans
> > > > > Lato https://packages.debian.org/sid/fonts-lato
> > > > > Cabin Sketch https://packages.debian.org/sid/fonts-cabinsketch
> > > > > Montserrat, Nunito, Raleway, Source Sans Pro: texlive-fonts-extra
> > > > >
> > > > > This leaves 4 which I could not find in Debian:
> > > > >
> > > > > Nunito Sans https://github.com/googlefonts/NunitoSans
> > > > > Inter https://github.com/rsms/inter/
> > > > > News Cycle https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~n8/newscycle/
> > > > > Neucha ?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks a lot for this very helpful investigation. The problem now is
> > > > how to know which of the 60 inst/fonts/*.woff files we can remove from
> > > > the source package since these are not needed and whether the fonts
> > > > you said are found by bslib if we simply set the dependencies you
> > > > mentioned above (and how to test this). The names of these *.woff
> > > > files are absolutely cryptic and I need to admit I have no idea about
> > > > all this fonts stuff.
> > > >
> > > > Kind regards
> > > >
> > > > Andreas.
> > > >
> > > > > Best,
> > > > > Eric
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 14:34 Eric Brown <eb@ericebrown.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since this is a pretty important package, I grep'd the package to see
> > > > > > what fonts are included. It looks like some of them are already in
> > > > > > Debian:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Roboto https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/fonts-roboto
> > > > > > Ubuntu https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/fonts-ubuntu
> > > > > > Open Sans https://packages.debian.org/sid/fonts-open-sans
> > > > > > Lato https://packages.debian.org/sid/fonts-lato
> > > > > > Cabin Sketch https://packages.debian.org/sid/fonts-cabinsketch
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The rest are all SIL OFL licence (Debian compatible). I was able to find
> > > > > > sources for all but two:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Montserrat https://github.com/JulietaUla/Montserrat
> > > > > > Nunito Sans https://github.com/googlefonts/NunitoSans
> > > > > > Nunito https://github.com/googlefonts/nunito
> > > > > > Inter https://github.com/rsms/inter/
> > > > > > News Cycle https://bazaar.launchpad.net/~n8/newscycle/
> > > > > > Raleway https://github.com/impallari/Raleway/
> > > > > > Neucha ?
> > > > > > Source Sans Pro ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > Eric
> > > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Eric Brown MD MSc FRCPC
> > > > > For encryption, OpenPGP public key available on request.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > http://fam-tille.de
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Eric Brown MD MSc FRCPC
> > > For encryption, OpenPGP public key available on request.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Eric Brown MD MSc FRCPC
> > For encryption, OpenPGP public key available on request.
> >
>
> --
> http://fam-tille.de
--
Eric Brown MD MSc FRCPC
For encryption, OpenPGP public key available on request.
Reply to: