Package Details: noto-fonts-unhinted-variable-git r5.efa9c9f-1

Git Clone URL: (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: noto-fonts-git
Description: Noto fonts git version (unhinted variable)
Upstream URL:
Licenses: OFL
Conflicts: noto-fonts, noto-fonts-extra, noto-fonts-full-git, noto-fonts-full-variable-git, noto-fonts-full-variable-slim-git, noto-fonts-hinted-git, noto-fonts-unhinted-git, noto-fonts-unhinted-variable-slim-git
Provides: noto-fonts, noto-fonts-extra
Submitter: jopejoe1
Maintainer: None
Last Packager: jopejoe1
Votes: 1
Popularity: 0.001578
First Submitted: 2022-12-22 01:55 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2022-12-22 02:28 (UTC)

Dependencies (4)

Required by (35)

Sources (8)

Latest Comments

hearth commented on 2023-08-29 11:33 (UTC)

I am going to rewrite the flag here as I was not aware markdown wasn't supported in those, and this should be an easier place to enter discussion.

This package will fail to build given how pip is treated currently. Consider simply marking the latest system version of pip & python as dependencies and changing to venv:

cd "$dir" 
if [ -e "$srcdir/venv/bin/activate" ]; then 
    activate=$(cat "$srcdir/venv/bin/activate")
    echo "$activate" > "$srcdir/venv/bin/activate" 
    python -m venv "$srcdir/venv"
    activate=$(cat "$srcdir/venv/bin/activate")
    echo "$activate" > "$srcdir/venv/bin/activate" 


Also, I feel the naming is a bit unintuitive - does this include CJK fonts? If not, then I feel simply noto-fonts-git or noto-fonts-main-all-variants-git is best, with noto-fonts-full-git being for actually all noto-fonts.

If it is desirable to distinguish between a package with all fonts and with all variants of those fonts found in the repos as against a package with the corresponding contents of the noto-fonts package as a subset excluding fonts such as CJK fonts (cf. the main packages, where noto-fonts excludes cjk and, emoji, and additional ttf variants), but with all variants of those fonts, I would feel calling the latter something like noto-fonts-all-variants-git or noto-fonts-main-all-variants-git, and the former noto-fonts-full-all-variants-git (and corresponding full packages without the variants can drop -all-variants- and replace this with something else), would be more immediately clear as to what is meant.

Perhaps that has been discussed elsewhere and a solid position was taken with a strong argument for it, but the main reason I see for excluding CJK in a 'main' noto-fonts version of the package is the size of the CJK fonts - but there the package is simply noto-fonts not noto-fonts-full, and its appearance in searches right next to the corresponding CJK package makes any such confusion almost impossible.

A side thought - I am not sure if the git repo submodules have all of the current repo fonts of the noto repos, given I think there are some new ones, recently archived ones (which may or may not be desirable to keep part of the package, depending on if they are still also distributed on regular the google noto fonts page or not), and change of names between archived and unarchived versions. Apologies if you've already checked this and it is the case it's all up to date - I would have to go through one-by-one and it'd quicker for me to write my own PKGBUILD at that point. (Something that I can do for all mentioned packages if you would rather that, though I can't promise how quickly I will be able to get everything ready.)