From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 079B93E485 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 23:36:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712792184; cv=none; b=mbmE1n/bx86PALW9cfmLnHPDI8sxWdeAv1wm65miPZiZSWAFOK42mU6RKA0PX1g3GKE5yhCqWI975BvH0TFzkDmPd421DU/6YdqXAwjrGtzl3Nn8BmzHXRY4osk3WArc4a+aRc3IPrBXAKtjiQhLeBNy5oUHLJ+B+mi2EFEvhTU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712792184; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Sfgys4M0mbwIrdfuWwMajETGhNADtXZMucFfJySAp98=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=tb63o9C10V5q2WRLzL2+IN+dZapOcvU0uX14mqPmS0iDtqUnSoeo2pE6Y87AAT+jWXghXeKCDpzN89lF9lASDDfP92VnK8LqLhb620Ct3ROqVon1ldSZPnwYqguKYvDUv/AVb5MXIUoySZghMP00dAk3JIS/oVYcMaiyBffke28= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=iFhs0DdX; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="iFhs0DdX" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 174AE47C26 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1712792182; bh=QZKAIMSrSrLsquQzUA3fkcN3C0F1fIOPeZYoL05jK+A=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=iFhs0DdX1fuo+Z5k0BBrJDHePNtW7R63HTOm8JH5WZpZUcQyhZN/BF0IdIs+LKfdK 2REaOv0Wp0vbsCm9ZoEIAQiVHIQ8rI9ZrWc3NnODFuvDd5OtonxqlsCEYMKaNuN2+c bYrGI4tz4wqEfHy4wSOYHtbGQAnzISqPLASHmwpXJt9EIalZpRjfX5Q4tyyC0RvBew 0t9Slsy1zH85AHvFdvkxi10jBphtoiYLG+2vYwcea5ZfCN9nmbTbtMVFqfc+b4gz9e oO3TPXvs/MDXtyCQmXf066czt78VemIyxmJbHxgoKLWwigQm3reWfeoiTPbu2VzeIQ ezwZikNuxq8Pw== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:5e00:625:67c:16ff:fe81:5f9b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 174AE47C26; Wed, 10 Apr 2024 23:36:22 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Akira Yokosawa Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?B?0JjQstCw0L0g0JjQstCw0L3QvtCy0Lg=?= =?utf-8?B?0Yc=?= , Randy Dunlap , Akira Yokosawa Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] docs: Detect variable fonts and suggest denylisting them In-Reply-To: <02ef631f-a53a-4795-95fc-e97723386f80@gmail.com> References: <20240323120204.155678-1-akiyks@gmail.com> <20240406020416.25096-1-akiyks@gmail.com> <87le5lszxm.fsf@meer.lwn.net> <02ef631f-a53a-4795-95fc-e97723386f80@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 17:36:21 -0600 Message-ID: <87v84osscq.fsf@meer.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Akira Yokosawa writes: > On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:52:37 -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > [...] >> Meanwhile, it occurred to me that it would be good to let the Fedora >> folks know that this breaks, so I've filed a bug there; we'll see if >> they have any thoughts on the matter as well. > > Actually, I opened: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2271559 > "google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts is not compatible with XeTeX" > > the other day as a bug in google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts. Ah...I filed mine under texlive, no wonder I didn't find yours first :) > In response, Peng Wu (one of font package maintainers) opened: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2272153 > "xelatex doesn't support font face from named instance of variable fonts" > > as a bug in texlive-base. I'm not sure why I didn't find that one, though...I did look. > In #2271559, I was asked to help report this issue to upstream XeTeX, > which is in my to-do list. > > It sounds like there should be a way for XeTeX to identify variable fonts > and ignore them. It seems like it should certainly be possible. We may end up carrying the workaround for a long time, though, before any fix filters through to users. Thanks, jon