FS#77966 - [ttf-ubuntu-font-family] font changes after update

Attached to Project: Community Packages
Opened by Uffe Jakobsen (uffe) - Thursday, 23 March 2023, 09:51 GMT
Last edited by Massimiliano Torromeo (mtorromeo) - Monday, 27 March 2023, 09:26 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages
Status Closed
Assigned To Massimiliano Torromeo (mtorromeo)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 8
Private No

Details

Hi,

After update of package ttf-ubuntu-font-family

from version:

ttf-ubuntu-font-family-0.83-8

to version:

ttf-ubuntu-font-family-0.862-2

The "Ubuntu" font got considerably thinner in its appearance.

I wonder if you accidentally made the "thin" font the default for ubuntu and not the "regular" ?
This task depends upon

Closed by  Massimiliano Torromeo (mtorromeo)
Monday, 27 March 2023, 09:26 GMT
Reason for closing:  Fixed
Additional comments about closing:  ttf-ubuntu-font-family-1:0.83-1
Comment by Trit' (trit) - Thursday, 23 March 2023, 10:30 GMT
Same for me. It seems that the Medium variant brings back the old (good) style, but if I choose it in my XFCE fonts settings, it keeps the Regular variant instead. It works only on GTK2 apps (like Double Commander, but not inside its file list panels).

If there is a fontconfig hack to force the display of the Medium variant over the Regular one, I’ll take it! o/

EDIT: tried this tip (https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/685529) replacing the font name string by “Ubuntu”, ran a `fc-cache -f`, but it did nothing…
Comment by Uffe Jakobsen (uffe) - Thursday, 23 March 2023, 10:35 GMT
I'm using LXQt -

LXQt Font Appearance only shows "Normal", "Bold", "Italic" and "Bold Italic"

"Normal" is the new "thin" that I'm complaining about - and "Bold" is much too "fat"
I have no option to select "Medium", "Regular" or similar... :-/

Comment by Trit' (trit) - Thursday, 23 March 2023, 11:20 GMT
I have Thin, Light, Regular, Medium, Bold, Extra Bold, and the same for Condensed and/or Italic variants, here (XFCE 4.18).
Comment by Michel Koss (MichelKoss1) - Thursday, 23 March 2023, 14:35 GMT
The "Thin" is even thinner than the new "Regular". The "Medium" is something similar to the old "Regular". I noticed that fontconfg files were removed from package for some reason. Restoring them doesn't fix underlying issue though.

My biggest concern is this 0.862 version seems to be some development snapshot while

even ubuntu 23.04 still has 0.83 https://packages.ubuntu.com/lunar/fonts-ubuntu

The upstream website also links to 0.83 as well: https://design.ubuntu.com/resources

I think this update was premature.
Comment by Trit' (trit) - Thursday, 23 March 2023, 17:39 GMT
Should we downgrade to the previous package version, then (0.83-8)?

EDIT: downgrading fixes the bug, but we can’t block this package’s upgrades in “pacman.conf” forever…
Comment by helle vaanzinn (glitsj16) - Thursday, 23 March 2023, 21:00 GMT
For users who prefer an easy downgrade until this gets a proper fix:
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ttf-ubuntu-font-family-0.83
Comment by Guilherme (GUiHKX) - Friday, 24 March 2023, 02:21 GMT
Or, you can simply downgrade by installing the official package from Arch archives:

$ sudo pacman -U https://archive.archlinux.org/repos/2023/03/22/community/os/x86_64/ttf-ubuntu-font-family-0.83-8-any.pkg.tar.zst
Comment by Arkadiy Illarionov (qarkai) - Friday, 24 March 2023, 17:55 GMT
> even ubuntu 23.04 still has 0.83 https://packages.ubuntu.com/lunar/fonts-ubuntu
0.862 already

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fonts-ubuntu/+bug/2011994 looks like upstream bug.
Comment by Michel Koss (MichelKoss1) - Friday, 24 March 2023, 18:27 GMT
Yeah they bumped it yet still only for beta pre-release of Ubuntu. Considering its brokenness is now official Arch should revert the update and wait until it is fixed.
Comment by Trit' (trit) - Sunday, 26 March 2023, 07:28 GMT
I guess the new version (0.863) does not fix it, since it’s still labeled as “confirmed” upstream…
Comment by Uffe Jakobsen (uffe) - Monday, 27 March 2023, 08:30 GMT
I agree - there is no visual differences between 0.862 and 0.863

Loading...