Talk:Distributions/Packaging Recommendations: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Cyeleighton (talk | contribs) →Emoji fonts: possible workaround |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Does this cause a problem anywhere? --[[User:Ngraham|Ngraham]] ([[User talk:Ngraham|talk]]) 22:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC) | Does this cause a problem anywhere? --[[User:Ngraham|Ngraham]] ([[User talk:Ngraham|talk]]) 22:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC) | ||
: I consider it possible that the framework really requires such tricks and when they are not applied, as they should not be, we end up with problems like Bug 463583. What serious applications do is they replace emoji code points with private glyphs. The downside is that these glyphs look different in every application on the same desktop (XD) But there is nothing a ''packager'' could do to fix a broken application. --[[User:Cyeleighton|Cyeleighton]] ([[User talk:Cyeleighton|talk]]) 22:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:39, 30 December 2022
Emoji fonts
The section Fontconfig configuration recommends Emoji fonts for all generic font families. But Emoji fonts are not serif, so substituting them for serif family does not sound like the right thing to do. --Cyeleighton (talk) 21:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Does this cause a problem anywhere? --Ngraham (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- I consider it possible that the framework really requires such tricks and when they are not applied, as they should not be, we end up with problems like Bug 463583. What serious applications do is they replace emoji code points with private glyphs. The downside is that these glyphs look different in every application on the same desktop (XD) But there is nothing a packager could do to fix a broken application. --Cyeleighton (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)