[Bug 1189267] New: installation-images fails to build with updated source sans fonts
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/a895f78a81a109471893519443e4d933.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
/yast2-trans.domains" [ 588s] running "cp /bin/check_fonts /usr/bin/fc-match ." [ 588s] running "/check_fonts usr/share/YaST2/theme" [ 588s] Error: font "Source Sans Pro" not found; closest match(es): "Roboto" [ 588s] Error: font "Source Sans Pro Light" not found; closest match(es): "Roboto" [ 588s] Error: font "Source Sans Pro Semibold" not found; closest match(es): "Roboto" [ 588s] mk_image: execution of "/check_fonts usr/share/YaST2/theme" failed at
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267 Bug ID: 1189267 Summary: installation-images fails to build with updated source sans fonts Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE Tumbleweed Version: Current Hardware: Other OS: Other Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: Installation Assignee: yast2-maintainers@suse.de Reporter: fvogt@suse.com QA Contact: jsrain@suse.com Found By: --- Blocker: --- With the update to version 3, the "Source Sans/Code" fonts dropped the "Pro" suffix in their name. While a fontconfig file to still match the old family name was introduced (https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/910248), installation-images still fails to build: [ 588s] running "unused_mos --domains --dir usr/share/YaST2 lib/AddFiles.pm line 800 in data/root/root.file_list line 759. [ 588s] make: *** [Makefile:169: root] Error 2 [ 588s] error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.OtDIU7 (%build) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/a895f78a81a109471893519443e4d933.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c1
David Diaz
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/a895f78a81a109471893519443e4d933.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c2
--- Comment #2 from Fabian Vogt
Looks like @Steffen already fixed/tried to fix it for installation-images in https://github.com/openSUSE/installation-images/pull/516 (see https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188927#c1)
Maybe the .qss part still missing. Checking it
It should not require changes in .qss, that should be covered by the fontconfig alias. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/a895f78a81a109471893519443e4d933.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c3
--- Comment #3 from David Diaz
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/a895f78a81a109471893519443e4d933.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c4
--- Comment #4 from David Diaz
(In reply to David Diaz from comment #1)
Looks like @Steffen already fixed/tried to fix it for installation-images in https://github.com/openSUSE/installation-images/pull/516 (see https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188927#c1)
Maybe the .qss part still missing. Checking it
It should not require changes in .qss, that should be covered by the fontconfig alias.
Good to know. As said in my previous comment, I just open a PR proposing the name change. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/a895f78a81a109471893519443e4d933.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c5
David Diaz
(In reply to Fabian Vogt from comment #2)
(In reply to David Diaz from comment #1)
Looks like @Steffen already fixed/tried to fix it for installation-images in https://github.com/openSUSE/installation-images/pull/516 (see https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188927#c1)
Maybe the .qss part still missing. Checking it
It should not require changes in .qss, that should be covered by the fontconfig alias.
Looking at the check_fonts script[1], looks like the change in .css and .qss files is required. It's documentation says
# Scan DIR for *.css and *.qss files (recursively), extract font families # and check if they are available.
So, hope the open PR fixed the problem once it gets merge. [1] https://github.com/openSUSE/installation-images/blob/b70d4430f2df1b099a54971... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/a895f78a81a109471893519443e4d933.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267
David Diaz
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/a895f78a81a109471893519443e4d933.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c6
--- Comment #6 from Fabian Vogt
(In reply to David Diaz from comment #4)
(In reply to Fabian Vogt from comment #2)
(In reply to David Diaz from comment #1)
Looks like @Steffen already fixed/tried to fix it for installation-images in https://github.com/openSUSE/installation-images/pull/516 (see https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188927#c1)
Maybe the .qss part still missing. Checking it
It should not require changes in .qss, that should be covered by the fontconfig alias.
Looking at the check_fonts script[1], looks like the change in .css and .qss files is required. It's documentation says
# Scan DIR for *.css and *.qss files (recursively), extract font families # and check if they are available.
It might not take fontconfig aliases into account, so the script fails even when it would work fine in the running system.
So, hope the open PR fixed the problem once it gets merge.
If this can get fixed such that the alias is sufficient, then the .qss would be backwards-compatible, which might be a benefit.
[1] https://github.com/openSUSE/installation-images/blob/ b70d4430f2df1b099a54971ef749d94689994d49/data/base/check_fonts#L5-L6
-- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/a895f78a81a109471893519443e4d933.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c7
David Diaz
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/a895f78a81a109471893519443e4d933.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c8
Steffen Winterfeldt
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/a895f78a81a109471893519443e4d933.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c9
Fabian Vogt
In my opinion the best way to avoid all this would have been to simply create new packages for '3' and keep the 'pro' fonts as is. Especially as the point of the font designer seems to be that the metrics differ from pro and the threat is that there will be '4' etc in the future anyway.
Adding maintainer to CC. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/a895f78a81a109471893519443e4d933.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c10
--- Comment #10 from Cor Blom
(In reply to Steffen Winterfeldt from comment #8)
In my opinion the best way to avoid all this would have been to simply create new packages for '3' and keep the 'pro' fonts as is. Especially as the point of the font designer seems to be that the metrics differ from pro and the threat is that there will be '4' etc in the future anyway.
Adding maintainer to CC.
So the fontconfig file is not sufficient and needs to be extended. Or we create a new package. I can see the benefit of both solutions and do not really have a preference. If the decision is to create a new package adobe-sourcesans3-fonts, I can do that (and the same for the serif variants). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/a895f78a81a109471893519443e4d933.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c11
--- Comment #11 from Cor Blom
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/a895f78a81a109471893519443e4d933.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c12
--- Comment #12 from Cor Blom
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/a895f78a81a109471893519443e4d933.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c13
David Diaz
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/a895f78a81a109471893519443e4d933.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c14
David Diaz
revert (...) was done to make these both fonts could coexist (resp if i got it correctly "sanspro" is a kind of alias for "sans3")
Closing as FIXED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/a895f78a81a109471893519443e4d933.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c15
--- Comment #15 from Cor Blom
revert (...) was done to make these both fonts could coexist (resp if i got it correctly "sanspro" is a kind of alias for "sans3")
No, sanspro and sans3 are separate fonts and treated that way. Sans3 is the successor of sanspro, but upstream wants them to be treated as different fonts. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
participants (1)
-
bugzilla_noreply@suse.com