[arch-dev-public] Scim and arphic fonts update in [testing]

Eric Bélanger snowmaniscool at gmail.com
Thu Mar 19 14:09:02 EDT 2009

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Firmicus <Firmicus at gmx.net> wrote:
>>> Eric Bélanger a écrit :
>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Eric Bélanger <snowmaniscool at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> I've just updated several scim-related packages. They are in the
>>>>> [testing] repo. The updated packages are:
>>>>> anthy
>>>>> libchewing
>>>>> libhangul
>>>>> scim
>>>>> scim-anthy
>>>>> scim-chewing
>>>>> scim-tables
>>>>> uim
>>>>> scim-uim (no update, just rebuild against uim 1.5.5)
>>>>> As I don't use these packages (I believe no dev use them either), I
>>>>> could only do  minimal testing.  It would be nice if users of these
>>>>> packages test them and report if they work properly or if there are
>>>>> problems with them.
>>>>> I've also updated (in [testing] repo) the Arphic fonts:
>>>>> ttf-arphic-ukai and ttf-arphic-uming
>>>>> There are two points about these fonts:
>>>>> 1. According to upstream:
>>>>> "This release contains Firefly's Bitmap fonts. The Bitmap fonts are available
>>>>> for 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 pixel and currently cover Big5 and GB2312.
>>>>> HKSCS is currently not supported as there are many more characters missing.
>>>>> So, for Big5 and GB2312 characters the bitmap glyphs should improve the
>>>>> rendering, but for all other characters, the rendering is the same like
>>>>> without bitmap glyphs."
>>>>> I might be nice to get comments about someone using these fonts to see
>>>>> if the ttf-fireflysung package is indeed no longer needed
>>>>> (http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8951).
>>>>> 2.  The updated ttf-arphic-* packages in testing provide the fonts as
>>>>> a TrueType Collection, i.e. the fonts come in 4 flavors (CN, HK, TW
>>>>> and TW MBE), with different glyph shapes according to the preferred
>>>>> shapes in each region (more info here:
>>>>> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/CJKUnifonts/Download). As a
>>>>> result TeX users will encounter trouble using this font.  The
>>>>> following programs/libraries are known to not fully support TTC files
>>>>> and can usually only use the first fontface of the TTC:
>>>>> - jdk and openjdk6
>>>>> - imlib2 and applications which use imlib2.
>>>>> Again, I and probably none of the devs don't use these fonts so
>>>>> feedback from users would be nice.
>>>>> Eric
>>>> Did anyone had time to test them yet?
>>>> Eric
>>> I just tested scim to input Chinese with pinyin method and it works
>>> fine. I don't use the other scim-related pkgs. I have tested the Arphic
>>> fonts rather superficially, but at first sight they are just ok (tested
>>> in gedit and with xetex).
>>> NB: These TTC fonts won't be a problem for XeTeX users (xetex is part of
>>> texlive-core), and other TeX users actually use the Postscript versions
>>> of the same fonts that come with texlive-lang-cjk.
>>> F
>> I received other testers' reports by personnal email or the bug
>> tracker (there was a couple of very minor bugs that were fixed last
>> week: a scim problem with java clients and gnome-panel is now an
>> optdepends for uim) and everything seems to be working fine. I've just
>> moved the packages in extra. If there are problems, submit a bug
>> report. Thanks to all the testers.
> Apparently, there seem to be problems with the packages.
> FS#13855 : this seems to be related the openjdk6  TTF collection issue
> that I mentionnend in my first post. I'm waiting a response from the
> reporter.
> FS#13854 : This one I have no clue. If someone  familiar with the
> packages could try to replicate that (ie using scim successfully
> outside of gtk apps), that would be great.  At least we'll know if
> it's indeed a package problem or a config problem on the reporter's
> machine. If you can replicate that, any hints about what might be the
> problem would be appreciated.
> Please post your answer in the bug reports.

FYI, both bugs are fixed. They were configuration issues. For more
details, please read the bug reports.

More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list