Issue 316800043: Add Greek and Cyrillic glyph aliases
DescriptionAdd Greek and Cyrillic glyph aliases
LilyPond default fonts (TeX Gyre) do not have Greek and Cyrillic glyphs.
New URW 35 fonts which are contained in Ghostscript 9.20 have them.
This commit makes that when you have the new URW fonts,
you can use their Greek and Cyrillic glyphs as default fonts.
Patch Set 1 #
MessagesTotal messages: 11
LGTM. Note, however, that the new versions of URW fonts are considered problematic, since they differ too much from the original set of fonts (especially metrics) – this is the very reason that currently TeXLive doesn't use them. https://www.preining.info/blog/2015/08/sins-of-the-past/ Admittedly, this problem doesn't directly affect lilypond, especially if it delivers the fonts in a bundled form.
Sign in to reply to this message.
On 2016/10/25 06:29:32, lemzwerg wrote: > LGTM. Note, however, that the new versions of URW fonts are considered > problematic, since they differ too much from the original set of fonts > (especially metrics) – this is the very reason that currently TeXLive doesn't > use them. > > https://www.preining.info/blog/2015/08/sins-of-the-past/ > > Admittedly, this problem doesn't directly affect lilypond, especially if it > delivers the fonts in a bundled form. Thank you for your information. URW fonts seem to have been released several times. http://git.ghostscript.com/?p=urw-core35-fonts.git;a=summary I do not know whether or not those problems have been resolved. However, there are still some problems. e.g. http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697058 So I think that LilyPond main font should be TeX Gyre fonts. I'd like to use URW fonts in order to complement the missing glyphs. This patch is only to set the font alias for the missing glyphs. When you build current LilyPond, some TeX Gyre fonts are required. They are installed in LilyPond's directory. e.g. /usr/share/lilypond/current/fonts/otf Do you think that URW fonts should be installed in the same directory?
Sign in to reply to this message.
> When you build current LilyPond, some TeX Gyre fonts are required. > They are installed in LilyPond's directory. > e.g. /usr/share/lilypond/current/fonts/otf > > Do you think that URW fonts should be installed in the same directory? Good question. Maybe yes. Or maybe a configuration option?
Sign in to reply to this message.
On 2016/10/25 20:39:09, lemzwerg wrote: > > When you build current LilyPond, some TeX Gyre fonts are required. > > They are installed in LilyPond's directory. > > e.g. /usr/share/lilypond/current/fonts/otf > > > > Do you think that URW fonts should be installed in the same directory? > > Good question. Maybe yes. Or maybe a configuration option? For GUB, it might be easy. GUB can download specific version URW fonts and can install them. For non-GUB, it might be difficult. There are many variations of URW fonts. e.g. difference of the name, with or without Greek and Cyrillic glyphs, etc.
Sign in to reply to this message.
> For non-GUB, it might be difficult. > There are many variations of URW fonts. > e.g. difference of the name, with or without Greek and Cyrillic glyphs, etc. Hmm. Didn't we have a test that checks whether the URW fonts contain Cyrillic glyphs? Maybe we should only install the new URW fonts (locally to LilyPond) in case the globally available ones don't contain Cyrillic ones.
Sign in to reply to this message.
On 2016/10/26 11:46:15, lemzwerg wrote: > > For non-GUB, it might be difficult. > > There are many variations of URW fonts. > > e.g. difference of the name, with or without Greek and Cyrillic glyphs, etc. > > Hmm. Didn't we have a test that checks whether the URW fonts contain Cyrillic > glyphs? Maybe we should only install the new URW fonts (locally to LilyPond) in > case the globally available ones don't contain Cyrillic ones. If I understand correctly, Cyrillic support of old URW fonts and current URW fonts are quite a different. For old URW fonts, it is by Valek Filippov. For current URW fonts, it is by URW. Our checks can detect old URW fonts. Current URW fonts cannot be detect.
Sign in to reply to this message.
> Our checks can detect old URW fonts. > Current URW fonts cannot be detect. Hmm, fontconfig collects information on a font's supported Unicode blocks while adding it to the database. If we check that the URW fonts are not Filippov's, but still support Cyrillic, we have the new ones, right? Would that work?
Sign in to reply to this message.
On 2016/10/26 15:16:27, lemzwerg wrote: > > Our checks can detect old URW fonts. > > Current URW fonts cannot be detect. > > Hmm, fontconfig collects information on a font's supported Unicode blocks while > adding it to the database. If we check that the URW fonts are not Filippov's, > but still support Cyrillic, we have the new ones, right? Would that work? Current newest URW fonts (June 2016) have OTF format. http://git.ghostscript.com/?p=urw-core35-fonts.git;a=commit;h=79bcdfb34fbce12... Other version of URW fonts do not seem to have OTF format. How about this? . configure script finds the following 12 OTF files. . If they are found, `make install` installs them. (Both TeX Gyre and URW fons are installed to /usr/share/lilypond/current/fonts/otf.) . Even if they are not found, configure script does not raise error. (Only TeX Gyre fonts are installed.) C059-BdIta.otf C059-Bold.otf C059-Italic.otf C059-Roman.otf NimbusMonoPS-Bold.otf NimbusMonoPS-BoldItalic.otf NimbusMonoPS-Italic.otf NimbusMonoPS-Regular.otf NimbusSans-Bold.otf NimbusSans-BoldOblique.otf NimbusSans-Oblique.otf NimbusSans-Regular.otf
Sign in to reply to this message.
> Other version of URW fonts do not seem to have OTF format. The link you are showing points to a directory where the fonts come in all three flavours. > C059-BdIta.otf ... in the ghostscript-9.20.tar.gz bundle the URW fonts don't have an extension and are still in Type1 format. It's not clear to me whether we can expect OTF versions of the URW fonts all the time. Anyways, I think your solution should work :-)
Sign in to reply to this message.
On 2016/10/27 15:50:14, lemzwerg wrote: > > Other version of URW fonts do not seem to have OTF format. > > The link you are showing points to a directory where the fonts come in all three > flavours. > > > C059-BdIta.otf > > ... in the ghostscript-9.20.tar.gz bundle the URW fonts don't have an extension > and are still in Type1 format. > > It's not clear to me whether we can expect OTF versions of the URW fonts all the > time. > > Anyways, I think your solution should work :-) I've created Issue 4991 for it. https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4991/
Sign in to reply to this message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
