Bug 636896

Summary: Droid Sans suggested by fontconfig as supporting 0x6587 but it doesn't
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Caolan McNamara <caolanm>
Component: google-droid-fontsAssignee: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: rawhideCC: fonts-bugs, nicolas.mailhot, tremble
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-09-23 17:42:14 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
standalone demo none

Description Caolan McNamara 2010-09-23 15:52:55 UTC 
Created attachment 449251 [details]
standalone demo

Description of problem:
Droid Sans is being suggested by fontconfig as containing 0x6587 (etc) but it doesn't have that glyph

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
google-droid-sans-fonts-20100409-1.fc14

How reproducible:
100%

Steps to Reproduce:
1. install google-droid-sans-fonts
2. gcc fontconfigdemo.c -lfontconfig
3. ./a.out
  
Actual results:
Reqesting font with support for 0x6587: Suggestion is "Droid Sans"

Expected results:
Something else because Droid Sans does not have 0x6587 in it. Moving the .conf away elsewhere gives the correct results, so something in the .conf is causing this to be suggested, even though it can't satisfy the requested glyph

Additional info:
probably related to bug 517789
Comment 1 Nicolas Mailhot 2010-09-23 17:42:14 UTC 
Our Droid Sans is a merge of all the Droid Sans parts Google released, including Droid Sans Fallback, which definitely includes  0x6587

So fontconfig is correct. The synthetic Fedora "Droid Sans" does include this glyph
Comment 2 Caolan McNamara 2010-09-23 19:15:25 UTC 
crap, its OOo losage again :-(, more to-dos.
Comment 3 Nicolas Mailhot 2010-09-23 19:32:36 UTC 
If that makes you feel better I think this particular fontconfig setup caused misery to Chromium developers first

(I so wish keithp had listened to me when I wrote him splitting font files over script boundaries were not the solution for i18n. Now that Google has actually done what he suggested with Droid, and we're actually trying to define the synthetic fonts fontconfig is supposed to be good at, not only it is not solving the problems we had with big unicode fonts, but it's adding new ones to the mix)