http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=992519
http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=992519#c7
Felix Miata
From my view, the font requirements are correct. The release notes should require
Recommends/suggests should be sufficient, particularly when the installation selection is minimal.
everything necessary to make them look their best by default...
Historically and still today, "look their best" is particularly subjective with fonts. As screen density increases, differences among and within fonts can change considerably. Fonts actually big enough to see can look vastly different from the tiny ones most programmers and web stylists think the whole world should be served. How can release notes "look their best" with Google Opensans when the major DEs offered are configured to use Noto, Roboto and/or Cantarell? What's the difference?
Can we close as WONTFIX or are there specific use cases where people need release notes installed locally but can't afford 2.7 MB extra space?
This is not about the amount of space these packages consume. It's about usability, visual acuity and an admin's ability to choose among the variety of possibilities offered. I require the fonts I require for legibility and other reasons, among which space consumed is trivial. Included among my requirements is for selected fonts to not be available, among which kde-oxygen-fonts is another. Requiring certain fonts in order to acquire a certain "look" is an onerous usurpation of usability and choice. Recommends or suggests should be sufficient for those of the opinion that look is more or even as important as function. Does any distro have a hard requires for any particular font just to have release notes available? I don't use openSUSE because of the way it looks. I choose openSUSE because of what it offers, the ways it works, as well as a few things it doesn't do. If I chose a distro based on looks, openSUSE would be among the last candidates rather than #1. (In reply to Ludwig Nussel from comment #6)
3) Even though it has nothing to do with this bug I'd probably also drop the PDFs. I kind of doubt anyone want's to print release notes :-)
Likely it's rare, but what about those struggling with an offline install trying to repair fonts that render corrupted or are otherwise illegible on screen? Putting the pdf on a USB stick to put in a printer is likely to produce exactly what's needed, and simply. (In reply to Simon Lees from comment #4)
I don't think its really worth that effort to save 2.7 MB on a system.
It ought to be worth maximizing configurability for those with visual issues. Accessibility isn't just about accommodating the blind or deaf. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.