Hi, Jonas Smedegaard <jo...@jones.dk> wrote: > Quoting Holger Wansing (2018-12-07 14:15:32) > > Hi, > > > > Jonas Smedegaard <jo...@jones.dk> wrote: > > > Quoting Holger Wansing (2018-12-07 08:46:37) > > > > Jonas Smedegaard <jo...@jones.dk> wrote: > > > > > A quick search for samples led me to > > > > > https://fontinfo.opensuse.org/fonts/NotoSansGujaratiRegular.html > > > > > and > > > > > https://fontinfo.opensuse.org/fonts/NotoSerifGujaratiRegular.html > > > > > which (especially when zoomed in and comparing the largest > > > > > samples) show slight difference e.g. in the "middle" glyf (to me > > > > > looking like an elefant at a lake with a candle on its head...) > [...] > > > > There is something going wrong with my font selection patch in > > > > rootskel-gtk, it has no effect at all. Don't know what I am doing > > > > wrong. > > > > No matter which variant of > > > > FONT_NAME="Noto Sans Gujarati" > > > > FONT_NAME="Noto Sans Gujarati UI" > > > > FONT_NAME="Noto Serif Gujarati" > > > > I use, the used font is always the same. > > > > > > Did you see my comments on that above? Are you sure the differences > > > are not simply _extremely_ small? > > > > Yes, that's probably possible. I need to validate this. > > Yes, please do. > > > > Interestingly, when I don't set at all which font to use for gu, I get > > the same result, at least at a first glance: I see the glyphs which > > can be seen on the screenshots you got. In contrary, when I build an > > installer image without the noto-fonts-unhinted-udeb package included, > > I get the TOFU placeholder signs inserted for all gu character. > > That makes me think that font selection via the gtk-set-font script > > does not work here for whatever reason and some default is selected. > > That does not explain the elefant-at-lake-with-candle-on-head glyph in > OpenSUSE samples being slightly different shape between Sans and Serif! > > I recommend to prioritize close examination over wild speculation.
Yes, you are right. And in fact, Kartik wrote me that the screenshots I sent with https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=911705#55 are all fine, but Noto Serif Gujarati is the best. Kartik is fine with my request for forwarding his mail, so here it is: Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 19:30:56 +0530 From: Kartik Mistry <kar...@debian.org> To: hwans...@mailbox.org Subject: Re: [debian-installer] Gujarati not usable, font broken or missing On Fri, Dec 7, 2018 at 7:12 PM Holger Wansing <hwans...@mailbox.org> wrote: > may I get your attention on bug #915825: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=915825. Hi, Sorry for ignoring this long time and thanks a lot for your work on this! I was suppose to reply this and then had to move home in hurry :/ > As I wrote there, I cannot see any difference on the three fonts > "Noto Sans Gujarati", "Noto Sans Gujarati UI" and "Noto Serif Gujarati" in > those screenshots. > Can you? > If yes, which one is best? You can go ahead with any of these. All seems working fine. However, Noto Serif Gujarati seems the best. Thanks again! -- Kartik Mistry | IRC: kart_ {0x1f1f, kartikm}.wordpress.com -- Holger Wansing <hwans...@mailbox.org> PGP-Finterprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
