Package Details: ttf-roboto 5:131072-1

Git Clone URL: (read-only)
Package Base: ttf-roboto
Description: Google's Android 5 system font.
Upstream URL:
Licenses: Apache
Submitter: akurei
Maintainer: Eriner
Last Packager: Eriner
Votes: 256
Popularity: 7.737964
First Submitted: 2011-10-19 11:33
Last Updated: 2015-12-17 20:15

Required by (3)

Sources (19)

Latest Comments

akurei commented on 2016-06-04 00:24

Disowned the package. Gave it to Eriner.

akurei commented on 2015-12-10 08:55

I don't have the time at the moment to deal with package maintenance. If somebody wants to take over this package, please send me an email to my maintainer E-Mail and I will transfer ownership to you, depending on your experience.

pedrofleck commented on 2015-12-08 15:39

This package is out-of-date, the new one is on GitHub:

akurei commented on 2015-09-25 22:11

> If yes I would suggest that this package should use github as source just like the ttf-roboto-mono package does.

@SunRed I did not even know there was a GitHub repository. I will look into it in the next few days if this is a good option.

SunRed commented on 2015-09-25 21:42

@lolzballs Have you tried using these fonts instead?
Does it make any difference? If yes I would suggest that this package should use github as source just like the ttf-roboto-mono package does. Otherwise there is something wrong with your configuration.
Have you tried using Infinality-bundle for improved font rendering? I guess the main issue in your case are wrong settings/font rendering.

lolzballs commented on 2015-07-13 02:11

I'm having weird font-weight issues in Chrome and Firefox, where they end up looking like this:, with font-weight: 500 and font-family: Roboto. On YouTube, they use font-weight: bold, and it looks like

Markus00000 commented on 2015-06-06 09:44

@akurei: I think you shouldn’t use `fc-cache -f` but rather `fc-cache -s`.

-f Force re-generation of apparently up-to-date cache files, overriding the timestamp checking.
-s Only scan system-wide directories, omitting the places located in the user's home directory.

If I remember correctly, once upon a time someone made a font package using `fc-cache -f`. Over the centuries it spread by being copied over and over. I was told it was not needed after installing fonts, probably because the cache files are not “apparently up-to-date” in such a case. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Markus00000 commented on 2015-06-06 09:29

Roboto Mono:

akurei commented on 2015-06-06 00:03


If you want to go ahead and do it yourself. If you don't want to, I will write the PKGBUILD on Sunday. I don't have time before Sunday.

akurei commented on 2015-06-06 00:03


If you want to go ahead and do it yourself. If you don't want to, I will write the PKGBUILD on Sunday.

Markus00000 commented on 2015-06-05 19:28

@akurei: It makes sense but so does the alternative. One could argue that Google Fonts is targeted at web fonts and therefore they split a lot of families. For example, Open Sans and Open Sans Condensed are split but in Arch they come in one package. Outside of the web, one could argue against splitting as very few people would care whether ttf-roboto was 3 or 4 MB in size. There really seems to be no standard for fonts packaging in Arch. Maybe we should just make sure someone makes ttf-roboto-mono and be happy. Would you like to make it? Should I?

akurei commented on 2015-06-05 19:15


So I just went to the website and these fonts are listed as individual fonts.
I am inclined to not include the slab or monospace variants in this package because of that. They share the name but they're different font families (my reasoning behind that: there's a lot of other fonts that don't share the roboto name which are obviously different font families). Does that make sense?

Markus00000 commented on 2015-06-05 19:04

@akurei: I see. That would leave the question open whether Roboto and Roboto Slab should be separate packages.

Also, if you look at other packages, for example ttf-fira-mono or ttf-inconsolata in [community], they also have X dependencies. What do you think about this?

akurei commented on 2015-06-05 18:55


Well there's for example ttf-eurof and ttf-monofur which are the same font family but seperate packages. I don't think it would be OK to include the monospaced variant in this package. Especially since some people just want the monospaced variant for their terminal and this package has X dependencies.

Markus00000 commented on 2015-06-05 18:52

@akurei, I was wondering that, too. I think it would be nice to have one package for the whole family. There is also Roboto Slab. Installing three packages for one font family sounds cumbersome.

akurei commented on 2015-06-05 18:42


Do you want me to add it to this package? I am not 100% sure I should. What are your opinions guys?

Markus00000 commented on 2015-06-05 18:35

Roboto Mono is available:

GZep commented on 2014-09-26 08:39

@akurei same issue like this:

akurei commented on 2014-09-16 20:53

@grawity: I will look into that!
@GZep: What do you mean?

GZep commented on 2014-09-16 20:19

Can I just use it as provides=('ttf-font') ?

Too many packages depend on it.

grawity commented on 2014-07-17 13:36

Since all versions have the same archive name, the pkgbuild should have:


to avoid confusion when trying to build a new version, but the old .zip is still cached in $SRCDIR.

thiagoc commented on 2014-07-17 13:26

sorry, it's not out of date.

akurei commented on 2014-07-03 12:39

I'm going to stick with the date for the time being. At least as long as Google does not include a README with a clearly stated version number.

Anonymous comment on 2014-07-02 15:30

The Gnome Font Viewer said this was version "2.000980; 2014"

akurei commented on 2014-07-02 13:50

Updated. Wish Google would stick with one versioning scheme =(

Anonymous comment on 2014-06-30 19:50

@akurei Version 2 is available at Google Design:

akurei commented on 2014-06-29 00:11

I will definitely look for a solution again in the next days that will keep the vanilla fonts.

akurei commented on 2014-06-29 00:02

Use ttf-roboto-fontconfig instead if you experience weird font looks. On KDE and XFCE at least (on my two PCs) there's not a problem. I do realize people are having problems with weird font behaviour, but as weird fontconfig metadata is an upstream bug, I would not want to change this package.

MightyPork commented on 2014-06-28 19:37

With this font, you get bold text in all Google+ notifications. Installing the ttf-roboto-fontconfig instead fixed the issue.

Maybe it'd be wise to somehow merge the two?

akurei commented on 2014-06-27 10:04

Whoever flagged this as out-of-date: Please provide an explanation why, because the Google provided font is still 1.2 and thus not out-of-date.

grassmonk commented on 2013-12-23 18:27

I actually combined mine with Atronach's so it looks like this now and is working fine:

<selectfont> <rejectfont>
<patelt name="fullname"><string>Roboto Medium</string></patelt>
<patelt name="weight"><int>100</int></patelt>
<patelt name="fullname"><string>Roboto Medium Italic</string></patelt>
<patelt name="fullname"><string>Roboto Black</string></patelt>
<patelt name="fullname"><string>Roboto Black Italic</string></patelt>

akurei commented on 2013-12-23 18:24

Does it work with the 60-roboto.conf in your last post for you? Because I just tried that and it did not harm my setup, so I could include it in the package.

grassmonk commented on 2013-12-23 17:27

I don't find that to be the case. I have all vanilla font packages and have the bold problem with Roboto.

akurei commented on 2013-12-23 17:24

I tried the infinality packages today and when I used them, I also had the problem with the bold fonts. So I installed the vanilla font packages again and the font is normal again. So this is definitely an infinalty issue.

SanskritFritz commented on 2013-12-03 09:36

kaipee did you even try to read previous comments in the very thread you are posting to?

kaipee commented on 2013-12-03 09:32

Is anyone else having issues with a lot of fonts being 'bolded' ? I updated yesterday and now most things are bold like:

- Read emails (same bold as unread)
- Chromium tabs
- File/Dir names in file manager

If you actually look in Gnome Tweak tool, Roboto is more bold than Roboto Bold (

akurei commented on 2013-11-21 01:32

Really, I would like to have a working solution for everyone. So if anyone knows how to fix this for everyone, I am all ears!

akurei commented on 2013-11-21 01:31

Really, I would like to have a working soultion for everyone. So if anyone knows how to fix this for erveryone, I am all ears!

Atronach commented on 2013-11-20 22:37

grassmok: Yeah but the problem is the italic style of the black and medium variants is not blocked so when you specify roboto in a text editor and set the italic style it changes to the bold variant (so then it's italic + bold together). And the "<patelt name="weight"><int>100</int></patelt>" line is not necessary since you supply the font fullname already. So this is a bit improved snippet I use:
<!-- Roboto bold font workaround -->
<pattern><patelt name="fullname"><string>Roboto Medium</string></patelt></pattern>
<pattern><patelt name="fullname"><string>Roboto Black</string></patelt></pattern>
<pattern><patelt name="fullname"><string>Roboto Medium Italic</string></patelt></pattern>
<pattern><patelt name="fullname"><string>Roboto Black Italic</string></patelt></pattern>

But It's not ideal too. From the nature of it you effectively block the black and medium variant globally making it not available for every app so you can't use it even If you want. I would love someone would come up with a better solution so the regular variant would be the default one but the black and medium one would be still available.

Plus there's a problem with Opera now - when I chose Roboto as the interface font in "opera:config" then the light version is used. Any ideas? Thanks.

grassmonk commented on 2013-11-20 17:55

In my install I added back in a 60-roboto.conf like the package used to have. It looks like this:

<patelt name="fullname"><string>Roboto Medium</string></patelt>
<patelt name="weight"><int>100</int></patelt>
<patelt name="fullname"><string>Roboto Black</string></patelt>

This file goes in /etc/fonts/conf.avail with a symlink to it in /etc/fonts/conf.d


akurei commented on 2013-11-20 16:09

Did you guys try that? Because in KDE the fonts are fine.

akurei commented on 2013-11-20 16:09

Did you guys try that?

kelsos commented on 2013-11-20 10:19

I also encountered the same issue, furthermore with the update installed I had an issue with the android developer website where the text appeared gibberish.

hexchain commented on 2013-11-20 08:57

After upgrade, this font looks like bold style everywhere (especially in GTK3 programs, see gtk3-demo). I have the following line in ~/.config/gtk-3.0/settings.ini:

gtk-font-name=Roboto 10

Changing Roboto to "Roboto Medium" or "Roboto Regular" doesn't help.

Does anyone have the same issue?

akurei commented on 2013-11-19 17:51

If Google would only keep one versioning scheme... Updated, thanks.

Kimi_Arthur commented on 2013-11-19 17:10

The version seems to be 1.2 now.

Atronach commented on 2013-10-01 21:42

With the latest update, the bold font issue rises once again. The old fix from [url][/url] needs to be changes since the font styles declares different family names and have different weights. I(ve changed it to this:
<!-- Roboto bold font workaround -->
<pattern><patelt name="family"><string>Roboto Medium</string></patelt><patelt name="weight"><int>100</int></patelt></pattern>
<pattern><patelt name="family"><string>Roboto Black</string></patelt><patelt name="weight"><int>210</int></patelt></pattern>
And I have verified it works.

akurei commented on 2013-09-24 14:27

Done. Thanks, did not know about epoch yet.

SanskritFritz commented on 2013-09-24 14:25

akurei please use epoch=1

akurei commented on 2013-09-24 14:17

Thanks for the hint! As the versioning-scheme has changed again (thanks, Google) users must "downgrade" this package to the new 1.00141 version (was 20121102).

gnustomp commented on 2013-09-23 11:06

There are newer versions of the fonts:

nienhs commented on 2013-03-24 19:55

@akurei: Thank you very much, and sorry for the late reply! It works great.

akurei commented on 2013-03-15 23:13

@nienhs: If you want, you can take over this package, if you think you can do better. Just tell me, and I will ophan this package.

akurei commented on 2013-03-12 18:13

nienhs, I updated the package. Could you please have a look at it and tell me if this works for you? It works for me.

akurei commented on 2013-03-12 18:13

nienhs, I updated the package. Could you please have a look at it and tell me if this ors for you? It works for me.

akurei commented on 2013-03-02 14:46

@nienhs I'll look into it eventually. But not the next few days. Got no time atm.

nienhs commented on 2013-03-02 04:00

Thanks for the package. I used the tip from to resolve the bold/black problem. Maybe you could include a font config in /etc/fonts/conf.avail to fix it by default?

SanskritFritz commented on 2012-11-14 13:59

Sorry, that was a stupid remark by me, I'm deleting it now. Sorry again for the noise.

akurei commented on 2012-11-14 13:40

Because it's the package release date, not the font release date.
As there's no "version" for the font, I am using the current date as the version.

SanskritFritz commented on 2012-11-14 13:17

@onestep_ua Because makepkg updates git package version automatically to current date.

onestep_ua commented on 2012-11-14 12:59

Why does package have version 20121102 if font version is 20120823? :)

akurei commented on 2012-11-02 22:17

PS: Google seems to change the license much. Was CC-BY-SA is now APACHE.

akurei commented on 2012-11-02 16:42

Updated. Thanks!

ukyoi commented on 2012-11-01 16:38

Roboto_Hinted_20120823 is here now:

Could you update the PKGBUILD?

grassmonk commented on 2012-10-11 17:37

I think I finally found a solution to the bold problem in GTK. under the "Fonts" heading.

Anonymous comment on 2012-08-13 01:32

Hey, fonts are acting strange for me too, specially in Chromium/Chrome.

antihero commented on 2012-07-03 23:09

Any idea how to get GTK to use the "Regular" weight? Doing "Roboto" or "Roboto Regular" gets the bold variant. I'm using stock freetype2.

antihero commented on 2012-07-03 23:08

Any idea how to get GTK to use the "Regular" weight? Doing "Roboto" or "Roboto Regular" gets the bold variant.

akurei commented on 2012-04-10 14:53

@thiagoc It works fine here (I can download from three different boxes with three different IP adresses).

Anonymous comment on 2012-04-10 14:42

I can't download the, the link seems to be broken. Anywhere else I can get it from?

thiagoc commented on 2012-04-03 12:20

@akurei: well, I'm using the infinality packages, maybe this is the problem.

akurei commented on 2012-03-18 14:48

@thiagoc: The problem (on my PC) vanished with the last release. There might be something else wrong with your setup?

thiagoc commented on 2012-03-16 01:53

@akurei no, the problem is still here :/

akurei commented on 2012-03-12 15:13

License seems to be cc-by-2.5 now...

akurei commented on 2012-03-10 19:13

Updated. Thanks!
Seems to also have eleiminated the problem of @thiagoc.

Anonymous comment on 2012-03-10 05:26

New URL appears to be:
The hash changed as well.

akurei commented on 2012-02-16 00:37

Nope, I am in fact experienceing the same thing.
It seems like the "default" and the "bold" font are pretty much the same thing.

It's the sole reason I have switched back to ttf-dejavu on my Desktop.
I don't know enough about TrueTypeFonts to be able to commit some kind of fix for this. If there's some fellow Arch'er who can provide a fix for this particular issue, I'd welcome a patch of any sort.

thiagoc commented on 2012-02-15 12:03

When I use this font some apps act strange, like Thunderbird and Pidgin. For example, in Thunderbird the subject and folders are bold, in Pidgin occurs the same with the name of contacts. Anyone else is having this problem? BTW I'm using infinality.

akurei commented on 2012-01-27 20:23

Updated. Thanks =)

Anonymous comment on 2012-01-25 15:53

ttf-roboto 20110115-4
Sun, 15 Jan 2012

Typo in version. Happy new year! :)

akurei commented on 2012-01-15 13:42

Updated to the latest ttfs

Anonymous comment on 2011-10-30 23:13

nice one, thanks!

Anonymous comment on 2011-10-25 02:18

Looks great!