Bug 2230471 - [Lenovo] GB 18030-2022 compliant Chinese font needed for OS preloads in China
Summary: [Lenovo] GB 18030-2022 compliant Chinese font needed for OS preloads in China
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Fonts
Version: 38
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jens Petersen
QA Contact: Fedora fonts special interest group
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2023-08-09 14:22 UTC by Mark Pearson
Modified: 2023-10-24 12:58 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-10-24 12:58:56 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Mark Pearson 2023-08-09 14:22:03 UTC
Description of problem:
The Chinese government have made it a requirement that OS vendors support GB 18030-2022. To my understanding this means that the preloaded OS needs to have a font that supports this spec and if we don't have that we won't be able to ship the Fedora OS in China.

I believe Fedora has the google-noto-cjk-fonts package and it looks like they are working on having compliance for this specification (based on https://github.com/notofonts/noto-cjk/issues/252)

The font is not part of the default install so I wanted to open the conversation as to whether it can be included in the default workstation include please.

If there is another font that is compliant available that I've missed let me know - this isn't a world I know well (despite, bizarrely, the very first job I ever had was making it so vector fonts could be rasterised for display :))

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): N/A

How reproducible: 100%

Steps to Reproduce: N/A
1.
2.
3.

Actual results: no compliant Chinese font available

Expected results:Compliant Chinese font available

Additional info:Let me know if there is anything we can help with directly here. Our team in China can help :)

Comment 1 Jens Petersen 2023-08-10 07:59:32 UTC
My immediate comment is just that we do install Google Noto CJK fonts by default,
but those fonts are not (cannot be) officially certified for GB18030 afaik.

Comment 2 Mark Pearson 2023-08-10 12:26:24 UTC
Thanks Jens - I thought they weren't in by default as I had to do a dnf install on my machine to get them. I'll check on a fresh install as this one has been upgraded from older versions.

On the official certification - I thought the 252 issue meant they were working on making them compliant. Once that is completed do you know if the updated version will cover us - I was assuming it would :) I can go and do more digging if needed.

Mark

Comment 3 Jens Petersen 2023-08-14 14:29:07 UTC
(In reply to Mark Pearson from comment #2)
> I thought the 252 issue meant they were working on making them compliant.

Yes, that is a good find.

Comment 4 Mark Pearson 2023-10-13 13:59:32 UTC
I think that Noto Serif v2.002 release (based on https://github.com/notofonts/noto-cjk/issues/252) fixes this

Can we put this on the todo list for a Fedora update please - it will make the next preload image we do compliant for China
Let me know if there is anything I can help with

Thanks!
Mark

Comment 5 Jens Petersen 2023-10-16 10:29:35 UTC
I think the google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts-2.004 already in F38 should over GB18030-2022 Level 2 according to the issue you list.
So that should be sufficient really, but we should update the serif font anyway.

Comment 6 Jens Petersen 2023-10-16 10:42:48 UTC
I opened bug 2244390 for updating google-noto-serif-cjk-vf-fonts to 2.002

Comment 7 Jens Petersen 2023-10-16 11:04:11 UTC
(In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #5)
> I think the google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts-2.004 already in F38 should *cover*
> GB18030-2022 Level 2 according to the issue you list.

(Fixed typo: over -> cover)

Also from my basic check the coverage of Noto Sans 2.004 and Noto Serif 2.001 looks similar for basic GB18030-2022 (without addendum 1
- also not ratified yet from my understanding) - though I haven't compared them glyph for glyph.

Comment 8 Mark Pearson 2023-10-20 18:52:28 UTC
Thanks Jens.
If we're already at a level that should meet the requirements I'm happy to close this and then I assume when we get to testing Fedora39 the team in China can confirm if any problems? I wouldn't do a glyph for glyph comparison :)

Let me know if I'm missing anything
Mark

Comment 9 Jens Petersen 2023-10-23 04:41:11 UTC
In fact Fedora 38 already has:

google-noto-sans-cjk-vf-fonts-2.004

So you could perhaps test this already today if you wish.

Comment 10 Jens Petersen 2023-10-23 04:43:42 UTC
(and F38 google-noto-serif-cjk-vf-fonts >= 2.001 is also available to install)

Comment 11 Mark Pearson 2023-10-23 16:16:17 UTC
Sounds good - I've asked the team in China to have a look. Many thanks for all the help
Mark

Comment 12 Mark Pearson 2023-10-24 12:58:28 UTC
Got the thumbs up from China so we can close this.
Thanks!
Mark


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.