Bug 1494850

Not just monospace default font was usurped, sans serif, serif also were.
Fixed it by doing:

$ sudo rm /etc/fonts/conf.d/35-urw-*.conf

*** Bug 1494991 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 1495099 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Hello, thanks for the bug report!

I have fix ready, but I'm currently testing it myself. Please, hold on there for a little longer. Thank you!

urw-base35-fonts-20170801-2.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0de4a9558d

urw-base35-fonts-20170801-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-0de4a9558d

Thanks! I don't see the issue reported in bz #1494563 anymore with urw-base35-fonts-20170801-2

Hi,

I've tested the f26 build, the fonts no longer take precedence over the other system fonts and they look really nice. I have used them in Gimp and elsewhere, but they refuse to show up in LibreOffice, even after refreshing the font cache, rebooting and deleting the user's configuration. I can't remember if I could use the previous version with LO, any ideas?

(In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #8)
> Hi,
> 
> I've tested the f26 build, the fonts no longer take precedence over the
> other system fonts and they look really nice. I have used them in Gimp and
> elsewhere, but they refuse to show up in LibreOffice, even after refreshing
> the font cache, rebooting and deleting the user's configuration. I can't
> remember if I could use the previous version with LO, any ideas?

So, I've checked on my F25 with (old) 'urw-fonts', and I'm able to use them in LibreOffice Writer.

This seems like a bug that should be checked (I suspect that LibreOffice might not be able to cope with Type1 fonts currently used in 'urw-base35-fonts').

I will write this down on my checklist, to look into this once I'm able to install the F26 in KVM/QEMU correctly (currently it fails for me).

If you want, feel free to open a new BZ for this. Thanks! :)

(In reply to David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] from comment #9)
> (In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #8)
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I've tested the f26 build, the fonts no longer take precedence over the
> > other system fonts and they look really nice. I have used them in Gimp and
> > elsewhere, but they refuse to show up in LibreOffice, even after refreshing
> > the font cache, rebooting and deleting the user's configuration. I can't
> > remember if I could use the previous version with LO, any ideas?
> 
> So, I've checked on my F25 with (old) 'urw-fonts', and I'm able to use them
> in LibreOffice Writer.
> 
> This seems like a bug that should be checked (I suspect that LibreOffice
> might not be able to cope with Type1 fonts currently used in
> 'urw-base35-fonts').
> 
> I will write this down on my checklist, to look into this once I'm able to
> install the F26 in KVM/QEMU correctly (currently it fails for me).
> 
> If you want, feel free to open a new BZ for this. Thanks! :)

I just checked another f26 installation with urw-fonts-2.4-23.fc26 and they are not available in LO.
Should the bug be filed against the fonts or against LibreOffice?

(In reply to Alexander Ploumistos from comment #10)
> I just checked another f26 installation with urw-fonts-2.4-23.fc26 and they
> are not available in LO.
> Should the bug be filed against the fonts or against LibreOffice?

Please, fill a new BZ against 'urw-base35-fonts'. I will check it later, and if needed I will reassign it to LibreOffice. :)

urw-base35-fonts-20170801-2.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

 microcode_ctl             x86_64  2:2.1-20.fc27         updates-testing  1.1 M
 perl-Errno                x86_64  1.28-402.fc27         updates-testing   72 k
 perl-IO                   x86_64  1.38-402.fc27         updates-testing  137 k
 perl-Socket               x86_64  4:2.025-1.fc27        updates-testing   57 k
 perl-interpreter          x86_64  4:5.26.1-402.fc27     updates-testing  6.2 M
 perl-libs                 x86_64  4:5.26.1-402.fc27     updates-testing  1.5 M
 perl-macros               x86_64  4:5.26.1-402.fc27     updates-testing   68 k
Skipping packages with conflicts:
(add '--best --allowerasing' to command line to force their upgrade):
 urw-base35-fonts-common   noarch  20170801-3.fc27       updates-testing   21 k
Skipping packages with broken dependencies:
 urw-base35-bookman-fonts  noarch  20170801-3.fc27       updates-testing  855 k

Transaction Summary
================================================================================
Upgrade  20 Packages
Skip      2 Packages

I really don't want to have conflicts when trying to update packages on my Fedora 26 box... This looks more like a packaging bug... I don't see the point on having conflicting package of anything...

... err ... should be Fedora 27 :)

Thank you for the report - it has been already reported here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-d6fb341f6d

And is fixed here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-74676ac3c1

Please, report any problems with the packages in testing repository directly in Bodhi next time, or open new BZ to it. Try to avoid posting comments in not relevant BZs - it only creates confusion for many other users. Thank you!