fontforge-20160404

[bdubbs@…]

New version

[ken@…]

This fits with my font testing (I use it to extract an individual ttf from a ttc, so that a tool can tell me what codepoints it contains), and I need a break from documenting those infernal Noto fonts (infernal in that many of them provide exactly one script, often from before the common era, without the ASCII letters so that I cannot just change everything to the font), but I will need to find another ttc file to download so that I can test this.

For the moment, I am having difficulty finding more ttc fonts with a known libre license, many fonts sites do not show the license. Will get there, but perhaps I might have to use something of dubious provenance (e.g. ripped off from Windows) for testing. For the moment I have the UKai, UMing, WenQuanYiZenHei ttcs - any pointers to other libre ttcs will be welcome.

[ken@…]

A quick look suggests that we want the -dist- tarball 19.9 MB, vs our current 20 MB, not the main tarball (121 MB). The dist untars to fontforge-2.0-20140101, but where the contents (e.g. Makefiles) have similar size but different timestamps, the dist is a few minutes later than the other.

The dist version seems to contain full gnulib, and a present arlib (the other tarball links to /usr/share/automake-1.4/ar-lib as we have seen before). It seems to miss contrib/admintools and lots of duplicate stuff (old-icons, older-icons, several created Makefile.in, and tests look to be much smaller, also missing a win/ directory which includes a 3.7 MB libX11-1.3.6-30.5.noarch.rpm.

On my attempt to get to it by pasting the current URL except for the filename, I got a 404 - that makes it look as if the current stuff is in releases/ not releases/downloads, but using the full URL including the filename looks as if it will work : github is becoming as much fun as sourceforge.

I have not yet tried to build this.

[bdubbs@…]

The dist version builds fine for me. Even though the directory name is wrong, the files are all dated April 4 (2016). It builds fine with current instructions.

I do get the start problem without the -new parameter.

Teh make check gives:

32 tests were successful.
19 tests were skipped.

Make check also downloads a few files:

fonts/MunhwaGothic-Bo 100%[=========================>] 562.32K
fetched-fonts/MunhwaG 100%[=========================>] 562.32K

Thats fonts/MunhwaGothic-Bold and fetched-fonts/MunhwaGothic-Bold above.

[ken@…]

Replying to bdubbs@…:

The dist version builds fine for me. Even though the directory name is wrong, the files are all dated April 4 (2016). It builds fine with current instructions.

I do get the start problem without the -new parameter.

Teh make check gives:

32 tests were successful.
19 tests were skipped.

Make check also downloads a few files:

fonts/MunhwaGothic-Bo 100%[=========================>] 562.32K
fetched-fonts/MunhwaG 100%[=========================>] 562.32K

Thats fonts/MunhwaGothic-Bold and fetched-fonts/MunhwaGothic-Bold above.

I agree with most of that, and I'm using a sed to get the corrected date in the pkgconfig files and in the test log. What I disagree with is the start problem. I have suppressed that fontforge.desktop sed in my current build to see if it was still needed. I then started fontforge from a term (urxvt) and navigated to /usr/share/fonts, then opened a ttf without any problems. I then did the same thing from xfce's menu Applications | Graphics | Fontforge. Just tried again, using an old bdf I found in ~/ (man, I ought to clear out some of this stuff :) and I got the splash screen, a box from which to navigate, and then once I selected the bdf it opened it - unlike the ttcs where I normally need it, there was no error window.

Just to confirm my fontforge.desktop has not been altered, it contains the following around Exec:

Comment[pt]=Um editor de fontes
Exec=fontforge %U
TryExec=fontforge
Icon=fontforge
StartupWMClass=fontforge
Terminal=false
Type=Application
Categories=Graphics;
MimeType=application/vnd.font-fontforge-sfd;application/x-font-ttf;application/x-font-otf;application/x-font-type1;application/x-font-bdf;application/x-font-pcf;application/x-font-tex;

I have suspected in the past that that problem had gone, but I did not always have everything installed to try to prove it.

Meanwhile, and just for the record, it seems to work - I downloaded a zipped msgothic ttc from one of the "get your free fonts here" sites (like most such sites it does not concern itself with licenses - would it be cynical of me to believe that windows users do not care about licenses ?) - very likely ripped off from microsoft. Anyway, fontforge could not understand it (three fonts but no names, so I tried the first but fontforge could not understand the headers). So I went back to one of the two CJK ttcs that I have (Arphic Public License) and regenerated one font. The ttf differs - I assume there are details along the lines of "generated by fontforge-$VERSION", but looking at the list of glyphs that I can find in it (the perl stuff) the output is identical.

[bdubbs@…]

Rechecking, I agree. The -new is not required.

[ken@…]

Fixed in r17243.