[Bug 1189267] New: installation-images fails to build with updated source sans fonts
/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://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c1 David Diaz <dgonzalez@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dgonzalez@suse.com --- Comment #1 from David Diaz <dgonzalez@suse.com> --- 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 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c2 --- Comment #2 from Fabian Vogt <fvogt@suse.com> --- (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. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c3 --- Comment #3 from David Diaz <dgonzalez@suse.com> --- I have open a PR[1] at openSUSE/branding repository. Not sure yet if it is enough for fixing that issue. Under review process. [1] https://github.com/openSUSE/branding/pull/127 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c4 --- Comment #4 from David Diaz <dgonzalez@suse.com> --- (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.
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://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c5 David Diaz <dgonzalez@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |IN_PROGRESS --- Comment #5 from David Diaz <dgonzalez@suse.com> --- (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.
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://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267 David Diaz <dgonzalez@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugzilla.suse.com/s | |how_bug.cgi?id=1188927 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c6 --- Comment #6 from Fabian Vogt <fvogt@suse.com> --- (In reply to David Diaz from comment #5)
(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://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c7 David Diaz <dgonzalez@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |snwint@suse.com Flags| |needinfo?(snwint@suse.com) --- Comment #7 from David Diaz <dgonzalez@suse.com> --- I have been trying to see if there is a way to "follow the font alias" at the time of checking the font but I didn't achieve a successfully solution. @Steffen, do you think it is feasible? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c8 Steffen Winterfeldt <snwint@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(snwint@suse.com) | --- Comment #8 from Steffen Winterfeldt <snwint@suse.com> --- Not without maintaining an 'acceptable' alias list or something like that. When I ran a quick check with the new font package fc-match returned: "Source Sans Pro" -> "Source Sans 3" but other variants were not mapped in any useful way. For example: "Source Sans Pro Light" -> "Roboto" So, IMHO this looks not the way to go. If we were to implement something in check_font we'd have to have a list of aliases we'd accept for a specific font; like, "Source Sans 3" is ok for "Source Sans Pro" but "Roboto" not. This can get out of hand quite easily and it seems better to me to just adapt the css files. 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. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c9 Fabian Vogt <fvogt@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cornelis@solcon.nl --- Comment #9 from Fabian Vogt <fvogt@suse.com> --- (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. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c10 --- Comment #10 from Cor Blom <cornelis@solcon.nl> --- (In reply to Fabian Vogt from comment #9)
(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://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c11 --- Comment #11 from Cor Blom <cornelis@solcon.nl> --- On further thought: is shows some repect to the designer of the font to follow their wishes and create new packages. I shall now submit that and see if they will be accepted. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c12 --- Comment #12 from Cor Blom <cornelis@solcon.nl> --- SR#912432, SR#912434, SR#912435, SR#912436 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c13 David Diaz <dgonzalez@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fvogt@suse.com Flags| |needinfo?(fvogt@suse.com) --- Comment #13 from David Diaz <dgonzalez@suse.com> --- @Fabian, Which is the status of this? I'm a bit confused. https://github.com/openSUSE/branding/pull/127 has been merged 5 days ago but https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/912434, which reverts the change from Source Sans Pro to Source Sans 3, was accepted 9 days ago. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c14 David Diaz <dgonzalez@suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|IN_PROGRESS |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED Flags|needinfo?(fvogt@suse.com) | --- Comment #14 from David Diaz <dgonzalez@suse.com> --- Hi there! A bit more than 2 months have elapsed since my last comment. Looks like this issue is already FIXED although I still do not fully understand the revert done at https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/912434. According to @Michal Filka's comment in https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1188927#c8
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://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189267#c15 --- Comment #15 from Cor Blom <cornelis@solcon.nl> --- (In reply to David Diaz from comment #14)
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