[Fontconfig] Announcing Fontconfig 2.4.92 (2.5 RC2)

[Frédéric Crozat]

Le mercredi 07 novembre 2007 à 11:46 +0100, Frederic Crozat a écrit :
> Le mardi 06 novembre 2007 à 10:57 -0800, Keith Packard a écrit :
> > On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 15:06 +0100, Frederic Crozat wrote:
> > > Le lundi 05 novembre 2007 à 16:22 -0800, Keith Packard a écrit :
> > > > The second release candidate for fontconfig 2.5 is released, thanks much
> > > > to Behdad for fixing a bunch of bugs and providing numerous Fedora
> > > > patches to improve the default configuration.
> > > 
> > > Before I forget (I wanted to push that for a long time and never find
> > > enough time to do so), and since Bedhad started to push Fedora patches,
> > > I'd like to push some configuration patches we have in Mandriva.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> >         <alias>
> >                 <family>sans-serif</family>
> >                 <prefer>
> > +                       <family>BPG Glaho International</family> <!-- lat,cyr,arab,geor -->
> >                         <family>Bitstream Vera Sans</family>
> > 
> > Are you really meaning to replace Vera Sans as the default sans-serif face here?
> 
> I must confess this was added a long time ago (before DejaVu / Vera) by
> our i18n specialist and I didn't touched it since.
> 
> I think it can be be at the end of the list.
> 
> I have another related question : we have some additional changes in our
> Mandriva patch (that I didn't include it this patch) on the font
> ordering and I was wondering if it was relevant for upstream :
> 
> for serif and sans-serif, we are favoring DejaVu over Bitstream Vera
> (since Vera is not changing anymore, unlike DejaVu which is also
> changing for latin glyphs). Should we do the same upstream ?
> 
> Related question : we are favoring free fonts (also because we aren't
> enabling patented bytecode interpreter) over MS fonts, by pushing Luxi
> and Nimbus over Verdana and Arial (or Andale Mono, Courier New). Do you
> think it is a good idea and still needed, with Liberation fonts around
> now ?
> 
> > > It is adding more fonts to 60-latin.conf, 65-non-latin.conf and
> > > 69-unifont.conf. Bedhad might want to look at 65-non-latin.conf, we are
> > > adding one or two Persian fonts, which might be better in
> > > 65-fonts-persian.conf but I prefer to have him doing the move between
> > > files. Moreover, it is adding some informations about locales impacted
> > > by fonts.
> > 
> > documentation is always helpful, thanks for the changes.
> > 
> > I didn't appear to receive the file in UTF-8 encoding, so I'm not sure
> > about some of the non-Latin names. Can you check your mailer and see
> > about ensuring that the attachment isn't getting scrambled?
> 
> Strange, it looks UTF-8 to me, I've checked the mail received on the
> mailing list. Moreover, we are both using evolution 2.12.0. 
> 
> I've attached a new version of the patch, done with git this time.

Hmm, it seems my new patch missed 2.5.0. Is there problem about it ?

I can split it into non controversial parts and parts which must be
discussed.

-- 
Frédéric Crozat <fcrozat at mandriva.com>
Mandriva