Hi/やあ, It took me much longer than planned before getting back to the buggy Japanese support we've been having in the graphical installer. Long story short, Unicode is definitely *not* helping in this particular area[1], and we end up having weird characters[2] when the Japanese language is picked up. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_unification 2. https://heistak.github.io/your-code-displays-japanese-wrong/ Kentaro-san worked on this a lot, teaching us about the issue, proposing solutions, even exploring ways to keep the size increase to a minimum. You'll find a number of discussions in the bug report and on the main merge requests (a number of others have been opened while exploring ideas): https://bugs.debian.org/1037256 https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/rootskel-gtk/-/merge_requests/5 I've come back to this topic lately and it looks like sticking to the MotoyaLCedar font is the best compromise (not as nicely-looking as BIZ UDPGothic, but much smaller!). At the moment, I'm using a trick on the debian-installer side to get this font embedded without the usual “font ships a udeb, d-i lists it, and boom”: https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer/-/commit/ee21b57e30138b044245fe2f7394a942dfec6945 https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer/-/commit/7aedbaf6cee3abb3333fe146536febea624f21ec If the addition of a fonts-motoya-l-cedar-udeb would be acceptable, this would be much slicker: https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/debian-installer/-/commit/c3773974bbd99935f3ed7a9c0f8cb6eb05e2184a Kentaro-san adjusted the proposed udeb addition following some remarks of mine, and I've confirmed that the clean approach would work as well as the dirty one (runtime-wise); as a nice bonus, we get the package registered in Built-Using just like other font udebs. If Hideki-san agrees, this could look like this: https://salsa.debian.org/fonts-team/fonts-motoya-l-cedar/-/merge_requests/1 The package was last uploaded in 2019, has been in sync between unstable and testing ever since, and a udeb addition shouldn't interfere with anything else (that I can think of). Release team, do you prefer enforcing the no new package rule (which has been active for many weeks already), and our sticking to the dirty approach? Or would you be open to having the udeb addition reach trixie so that things are a little cleaner? In hindsight, we could have requested an extra udeb for each candidate font, but I usually prefer coming up with a plan instead of brute forcing my way through… I'd totally understand either answer, I know we're way past due already… I'd just hate not asking after all the time spend on preliminary work and testing. Thanks for your time. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature