there seem to be very few iso8859-1 (latin-1) fonts. in particular the lucidatypewriter fonts aren't there for 8859-1. but it does have 8859-2.
just playing with xfontsel i see about 800 8859-1 fonts and 2000 8859-2. did something get left out? i did an everything install. and further poking with yum doesn't show any other font packages that could be installed.
# yum list all fonts* Setting up Repos base 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 updates 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 contrib 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 addons 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 extras 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 Reading repository metadata in from local files base : ################################################## 1407/1407 updates : ################################################## 9/9 extras : ################################################## 24/24 Installed Packages fonts-ISO8859-2.noarch 1.0-13 installed fonts-ISO8859-2-100dpi.noarch 1.0-13 installed fonts-ISO8859-2-75dpi.noarch 1.0-13 installed fonts-KOI8-R.noarch 1.0-7 installed fonts-KOI8-R-100dpi.noarch 1.0-7 installed fonts-KOI8-R-75dpi.noarch 1.0-7 installed fonts-arabic.noarch 1.5-3 installed fonts-bengali.noarch 0.1-3 installed fonts-hebrew.noarch 0.100-4 installed fonts-ja.noarch 8.0-16 installed fonts-xorg-100dpi.noarch 6.8.1-1 installed fonts-xorg-75dpi.noarch 6.8.1-1 installed fonts-xorg-ISO8859-14-100dpi.noarch 6.8.1-1 installed fonts-xorg-ISO8859-14-75dpi.noarch 6.8.1-1 installed fonts-xorg-ISO8859-15-100dpi.noarch 6.8.1-1 installed fonts-xorg-ISO8859-15-75dpi.noarch 6.8.1-1 installed fonts-xorg-ISO8859-2-100dpi.noarch 6.8.1-1 installed fonts-xorg-ISO8859-2-75dpi.noarch 6.8.1-1 installed fonts-xorg-ISO8859-9-100dpi.noarch 6.8.1-1 installed fonts-xorg-ISO8859-9-75dpi.noarch 6.8.1-1 installed fonts-xorg-base.noarch 6.8.1-1 installed fonts-xorg-cyrillic.noarch 6.8.1-1 installed fonts-xorg-syriac.noarch 6.8.1-1 installed fonts-xorg-truetype.noarch 6.8.1-1 installed
i have tracked this down to redhat. there is a bugzilla entry for fc3 (139108) that i have added a comment that this impacts rhel4 as well. if there are any real rhel4 users, can you double check your system and complain if you don't have any lucidatypewriter fonts for iso8859-1? this really traces back to an x.org makefile bug.
Ouch! That could be a show-stopper for those wishing to use CentOS/RHEL v4 for their desktop.... :(
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:33:32 -0800 (PST), Joe Pruett joey@clean.q7.com wrote:
i have tracked this down to redhat. there is a bugzilla entry for fc3 (139108) that i have added a comment that this impacts rhel4 as well. if there are any real rhel4 users, can you double check your system and complain if you don't have any lucidatypewriter fonts for iso8859-1? this really traces back to an x.org makefile bug.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@caosity.org http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
i am using it for my desktop. it is functional, but some of my normal fonts aren't there. i was mainly confused by the font selections available in firefox. then i got an error from an old version of legato networker that wants that font and so i started poking around.
if enough people whine, hopefully rh will fix the issue.
Guess it's functional, just not optimal.
You would have thought this would have been one of the items that came out of the betas. :(
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:13:38 -0800 (PST), Joe Pruett joey@clean.q7.com wrote:
i am using it for my desktop. it is functional, but some of my normal fonts aren't there. i was mainly confused by the font selections available in firefox. then i got an error from an old version of legato networker that wants that font and so i started poking around.
if enough people whine, hopefully rh will fix the issue.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@caosity.org http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
the claim on the various bugzilla sites was that it would be updated in fc3. from there it should have made it to rhel4. that's why i encourage people to whine to rh if they have an official channel to do so through.
Have you got a link we can all raise a concern with? ;)
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 17:34:18 -0800 (PST), Joe Pruett joey@clean.q7.com wrote:
the claim on the various bugzilla sites was that it would be updated in fc3. from there it should have made it to rhel4. that's why i encourage people to whine to rh if they have an official channel to do so through.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@caosity.org http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
139108 is the bugzilla bugid for fc3. i put a comment on there about it affecting rhel4 as well, but i don't have an rhn entitlement to make it have much meaning. so if someone has a real rhel4 system, then submitting a new bug against that would probably be the best.
Unfortunately I don't have a valid RHN any more... :(
Hopefully someone else runs with it.
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 21:11:16 -0800 (PST), Joe Pruett joey@clean.q7.com wrote:
139108 is the bugzilla bugid for fc3. i put a comment on there about it affecting rhel4 as well, but i don't have an rhn entitlement to make it have much meaning. so if someone has a real rhel4 system, then submitting a new bug against that would probably be the best.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@caosity.org http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-
Joe Pruett -
Matt Bottrell