Bug#1051314: fonts-recommended: recognise noto-core as alternative to dejavu-core

[Justin B Rye]

Package: fonts-recommended
Version: 1
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch

Various major desktops now default to fonts-noto-core instead of
fonts-dejavu-core. During a conversation with a fontconfig-config
maintainer on debian-l10n-english about the knock-on effects
("https://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-english/2023/09/msg00001.html")
I noticed that the dependency chains ensuring that fonts-noto-core is
actually installed at all are surprisingly weak.

This font package used to be very nearly the only one I needed to have
manually installed to ensure I got everything I was likely to want (as
a linguist I add fonts-unifont just to be on the safe side). Changing
the "Depends: fonts-dejavu-core" to "fonts-dejavu-core |
fonts-noto-core" (or even the reverse) would help the package stay
just as useful on trixie. Possibly more useful, if noto's coverage is
good enough to let me stop installing unifont!

-- System Information:
Debian Release: trixie/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 6.4.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU threads; PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_GB:en
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

Versions of packages fonts-recommended depends on:
ii fonts-cantarell 0.303.1-1
ii fonts-comic-neue 2.51-4
ii fonts-courier-prime 0+git20190115-3
ii fonts-croscore 20201225-2
ii fonts-crosextra-caladea 20200211-2
ii fonts-crosextra-carlito 20230309-2
ii fonts-dejavu-core 2.37-8
ii fonts-firacode 6.2-2
ii fonts-freefont-otf 20211204+svn4273-2
ii fonts-league-spartan 2.210-1
ii fonts-noto-color-emoji 2.038-1
ii fonts-symbola 2.60-1.1
ii fonts-urw-base35 20200910-7

fonts-recommended recommends no packages.

fonts-recommended suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package

[Adam Borowski]

On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 07:22:36AM +0100, Justin B Rye wrote:
> Package: fonts-recommended
> Version: 1
> Severity: wishlist

> Various major desktops now default to fonts-noto-core instead of
> fonts-dejavu-core. During a conversation with a fontconfig-config
> maintainer on debian-l10n-english about the knock-on effects
> ("https://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-english/2023/09/msg00001.html")
> I noticed that the dependency chains ensuring that fonts-noto-core is
> actually installed at all are surprisingly weak.
>
> This font package used to be very nearly the only one I needed to have
> manually installed to ensure I got everything I was likely to want

Alas, noto has the downside of making font pickers next to useless, as
it declares every single of languages it supports as a separate font family.
So instead off just "Noto Sans" "Noto Mono" "Noto Slightly Serifed", you
have "Noto Western Klingon" "Noto Eastern Klingon" and so on, making the
list of available fonts one big noto fest.

Given that you can install Noto yourself if that is your choice, removing
any need for this metapackage, I don't quite see the point of declaring
an alternative. On the other hand, Dejavu has the technical quirk of
having been taken for granted for so long by random pieces of software,
I'd rather not skip it. Somehow despite Noto's ubiquity in the Android
world this is not the case for it, as software doesn't get ported (at least,
not without significant changes) between Android and regular OSes much.

I thus consider removing all (or most) alternatives here, and make this
metapackage a single opinionated set. Alternatives are good for tasks/etc
where there's a serious downside to having them not installed -- for a
set of fonts, not so much.


Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ ᛊᚨᚾᛁᛏᚣ᛫ᛁᛊ᛫ᚠᛟᚱ᛫ᚦᛖ᛫ᚹᛖᚨᚲ
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀

[Justin Rye]

Adam Borowski wrote:

Alas, noto has the downside of making font pickers next to useless, as
it declares every single of languages it supports as a separate font family.
So instead off just "Noto Sans" "Noto Mono" "Noto Slightly Serifed", you
have "Noto Western Klingon" "Noto Eastern Klingon" and so on, making the
list of available fonts one big noto fest.

Ah, okay.  I don't tend to encounter font pickers, so I hadn't noticed.

 

Given that you can install Noto yourself if that is your choice, removing
any need for this metapackage, I don't quite see the point of declaring
an alternative.

The point would just be that I keep track of the packages I've installed manually, and the fewer there are the easier that is.  Still, I've always got the option of reducing that list to a single personal metapackage via equivs.

--

JBR

with apologies for the formatting - I'm away from my usual keyboard

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson]

Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2023 at 07:22:36AM +0100, Justin B Rye wrote:

>> Various major desktops now default to fonts-noto-core instead of
>> fonts-dejavu-core. During a conversation with a
>> fontconfig-config maintainer on debian-l10n-english about the
>> knock-on effects
>> ("https://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-english/2023/09/msg00001.html")
>> I noticed that the dependency chains ensuring that fonts-noto-core
>> is actually installed at all are surprisingly weak.

After our conversation I made two installs for test purposes:

1. Debian 12 with GNOME
Result: fonts-noto-core was not included by default.

2. Debian trixie with GNOME
Result: fonts-noto-core was included by default.

I suspect that the change can be explained by this commit:
https://salsa.debian.org/freedesktop-team/fontconfig/-/commit/5aa10dde

> Alas, noto has the downside of making font pickers next to useless,
> as it declares every single of languages it supports as a separate
> font family. So instead off just "Noto Sans" "Noto Mono" "Noto
> Slightly Serifed", you have "Noto Western Klingon" "Noto Eastern
> Klingon" and so on, making the list of available fonts one big noto
> fest.

If you assume that users often want to change much, I can understand
that you see that as a disadvantage. OTOH, a user who wants to do it
differently can uninstall fonts-noto-core and with that get a
significantly shorter list.

Myself is involved in changing the default selection of fonts and font
configuration for Ubuntu. In that context we focus on offering the users
a sensible default, which most users are comfortable with, and the way
Noto provides different fonts for different scripts and purposes is an
advantage to achieve that. Ubuntu is about to prefer Noto for most
scripts, but to the extent exceptions proves to be motivated, that can
be handled relatively easy via font configuration. Something that would
have been harder with DejaVu Sans as the preferred font.


I have no firm opinion, at least not yet, on the role of
fonts-recommended and whether the proposed change is motivated. But I
just posted a list message about the ongoing transition from DejaVu to
Noto, to reach a broader audience:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2023/09/msg00053.html

Do feel encouraged to respond to it.

--
Cheers,
Gunnar Hjalmarsson

[Adam Borowski]

On Sat, Sep 09, 2023 at 11:24:04PM +0200, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
> After our conversation I made two installs for test purposes:
>
> 1. Debian 12 with GNOME
> Result: fonts-noto-core was not included by default.
>
> 2. Debian trixie with GNOME
> Result: fonts-noto-core was included by default.
>
> I suspect that the change can be explained by this commit:
> https://salsa.debian.org/freedesktop-team/fontconfig/-/commit/5aa10dde

There's a lot of Debian outside GNOME -- and in fact, if you are already
using their metapackages, you don't need more. I'd prefer for non-GNOME
metapackages to be universal, and thus what a particular desktop already
depends or does not depend on is not a concern for me.

Thus: OP's request is neither mooted nor vindicated by whatever GNOME does.

> > Alas, noto has the downside of making font pickers next to useless,
> > as it declares every single of languages it supports as a separate
> > font family. So instead off just "Noto Sans" "Noto Mono" "Noto
> > Slightly Serifed", you have "Noto Western Klingon" "Noto Eastern
> > Klingon" and so on, making the list of available fonts one big noto
> > fest.
>
> If you assume that users often want to change much, I can understand that
> you see that as a disadvantage. OTOH, a user who wants to do it differently
> can uninstall fonts-noto-core and with that get a significantly shorter
> list.

Noted. You don't care about fonts just whether a particular character is
covered, me and other people in the Fonts Team obviously have more interest
in distinct fonts. That's the diff between eg. linguists vs layout
designers, different people have different priorities.

> Myself is involved in changing the default selection of fonts and font
> configuration for Ubuntu. In that context we focus on offering the users a
> sensible default

Aye!

> which most users are comfortable with, and the way Noto
> provides different fonts for different scripts and purposes is an advantage

> to achieve that Ubuntu is about to prefer Noto for most scripts, but to the

> extent exceptions proves to be motivated, that can be handled relatively
> easy via font configuration.

As this metapackage was written by me, I'm kind of concerned I use "royal
we" too much and say stuff about the opinions of Debian Fonts team more
than warranted -- but, with paragraph^^ above, perhaps the description and
the focus of this metapackage could be changed, to explicitly cater to a
different audience? Having multiple metapackages do essentially the same
thing is kind of redundant.

> Something that would have been harder with
> DejaVu Sans as the preferred font.

DejaVu has a decent but not universal coverage; it's included on the list
more for technical legacy reasons, just like Windows-compatible fonts are.

> I have no firm opinion, at least not yet, on the role of fonts-recommended
> and whether the proposed change is motivated. But I just posted a list
> message about the ongoing transition from DejaVu to Noto, to reach a broader
> audience:

> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2023/09/msg00053.html

I'm behind reading mailing lists, but I agree 100% with what other members
of the Fonts Team said. Noto is ugly, a bit too disk heavy for 60% of
keyboard-attached boxen I use, and pollutes font lists too much.


Besides, Noto can be said to be a metapackage by itself, providing a large
set of fonts -- even if it claims to be a single font, it presents hundreds
of them to the system and UI interfaces.


Meow!
--
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ Elemental clouds:
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ • earth: cumulogranite (aviation)
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ • fire: pyrocumulus (forestry, volcanism)
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ No known relations of clouds to air or water.

[Gunnar Hjalmarsson]

On 2023-09-10 13:53, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 09, 2023 at 11:24:04PM +0200, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
>> After our conversation I made two installs for test purposes:
>>
>> 1. Debian 12 with GNOME
>> Result: fonts-noto-core was not included by default.
>>
>> 2. Debian trixie with GNOME
>> Result: fonts-noto-core was included by default.
>>
>> I suspect that the change can be explained by this commit:
>> https://salsa.debian.org/freedesktop-team/fontconfig/-/commit/5aa10dde
>
> There's a lot of Debian outside GNOME -- and in fact, if you are already
> using their metapackages, you don't need more. I'd prefer for non-GNOME
> metapackages to be universal, and thus what a particular desktop already
> depends or does not depend on is not a concern for me.

I used GNOME as an example, since we had talked about the GNOME desktop
at the debian-l10n-english mailing list.

I installed Debian trixie again, but chose Xfce this time instead of
GNOME. fonts-noto-core is there.

$ fc-match
NotoSans-Regular.ttf: "Noto Sans" "Regular"

And fonts-dejavu-core is *not* there. The task-* meta packages are
apparently of limited importance in this context, at least for latin
scripts.

So the linked fontconfig change seems to affect the whole Debian
irrespective of desktop environment. fontconfig-config is included in
the base install, before the desktop components are selected and installed.

>>> Alas, noto has the downside of making font pickers next to useless,
>>> as it declares every single of languages it supports as a separate
>>> font family. So instead off just "Noto Sans" "Noto Mono" "Noto
>>> Slightly Serifed", you have "Noto Western Klingon" "Noto Eastern
>>> Klingon" and so on, making the list of available fonts one big noto
>>> fest.
>>
>> If you assume that users often want to change much, I can understand that
>> you see that as a disadvantage. OTOH, a user who wants to do it differently
>> can uninstall fonts-noto-core and with that get a significantly shorter
>> list.
>
> Noted. You don't care about fonts just whether a particular character is
> covered, me and other people in the Fonts Team obviously have more interest
> in distinct fonts. That's the diff between eg. linguists vs layout
> designers, different people have different priorities.

True. Personal preferences play an important role, and discussions on
this topic tend to be complex for that reason.

>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2023/09/msg00053.html
>
> I'm behind reading mailing lists, but I agree 100% with what other members
> of the Fonts Team said. Noto is ugly, a bit too disk heavy for 60% of
> keyboard-attached boxen I use, and pollutes font lists too much.

Noted. I will post to debian-devel soon again with some clarifications.
The initial reactions are not overwhelmingly positive. :/

> Besides, Noto can be said to be a metapackage by itself, providing a large
> set of fonts -- even if it claims to be a single font, it presents hundreds
> of them to the system and UI interfaces.

That's entirely a result of the way the Noto fonts are packaged in
Debian, and not something that should be attributed to Noto itself.
Discussed at https://bugs.debian.org/983291 .

--
Gunnar

[Jonas Smedegaard]

Quoting Gunnar Hjalmarsson (2023-09-10 21:25:12)

> On 2023-09-10 13:53, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 09, 2023 at 11:24:04PM +0200, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
> >>> Alas, noto has the downside of making font pickers next to useless,
> >>> as it declares every single of languages it supports as a separate
> >>> font family. So instead off just "Noto Sans" "Noto Mono" "Noto
> >>> Slightly Serifed", you have "Noto Western Klingon" "Noto Eastern
> >>> Klingon" and so on, making the list of available fonts one big noto
> >>> fest.

[...]

> > Besides, Noto can be said to be a metapackage by itself, providing a large
> > set of fonts -- even if it claims to be a single font, it presents hundreds
> > of them to the system and UI interfaces.
>
> That's entirely a result of the way the Noto fonts are packaged in
> Debian, and not something that should be attributed to Noto itself.
> Discussed at https://bugs.debian.org/983291 .

You are potentially talking past each other here:

Noto (the upstream project) is marketed as a font but technically
appears in an installed operating system not as a single font family but
as multiple similarly named but independent font families, each with a
set of weights and each covering a subset of scripts and glyphs.

fonts-noto (the Debian binary package) is a metapackage pulling in all
upstream Noto fonts available in Debian.

So yes, a Debian metapackage exists that is big, but the existence of
that metapackage is not what "mak[es] font pickers next to useless", nor
what "claims to be a single font".


- Jonas

--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
* Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private