-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 461
Source Code Pro font not working properly #3972
Comments
Unfortunately, the google versions are old and do not contain many fixes and updates. The PR to restructure the names: #3898 led to an understandable decision to remove all adobe fonts (#3903) and they got replaced with the older Google ones. Personally this regression is worse than the annoyance of the changed names, as while it is possible to substitute font names easily, having to deal with finding completely new fonts for missing glyphs or working round the bugs fixed over the past few years is a harder proposition. It is hard work for the maintainers that keep homebrew running, and I appreciate their hard work dealing with unsympathetic Corporations like Adobe, so I respect their choices and I think if the brew versions of these fonts don't work for you, we endusers should probably just manually manage Adobe fonts (I've removed the brew versions and manually updated already). But if there was a better solution that would be great! |
You can try hosting the removed fonts in your own tap. Here are some docs to help you get started: https://docs.brew.sh/Taps This tap might also be a good candidate for inclusion in the list at https://docs.brew.sh/Interesting-Taps-and-Forks. |
That was going to be my suggestion. That’s the way to go in this case, or convince Google Fonts to merge the current PRs. |
Same issue here. But closing the issue with a "try hosting yourself" is IMHO not the expected answer nor a solution. IMHO this issue should be reopened until it is fixed. |
I'm sorry, but I didn't realise we were obligated to give expected answers. Could you tell me how we came to incur this obligation? |
I didn't tell that you or someone else was "obligated" to do something. I just told you my expectations. I would suggest to remove something broken (in this case this font) or fix it. |
Yes, but why are your expectations even relevant here? It seems as if your expectations should form some sort of impetus for us to act. Cannot understand your answer otherwise. I would suggest that you consider how much work you're asking other people to do for you. If you want something done, please either:
|
I have no idea what you’re going on about. Are you talking about the badges on the comments? That’s a GitHub automatic feature, we have no control over it. It indicates that @carlocab is a maintainer in the Homebrew organisation so users know, it has nothing to do with a “class society”. I’m locking this because you’re coming off as combative and I’d rather not escalate further. Especially since you’ve never contributed with either code or discussion before, you shouldn’t be making demands on how to run the project. It’s always the user with a short contributions graph which come guns blazing. That’s the kind of attitude that burns out open-source developers. We are volunteers running for free a project you benefit from in our spare time. I’m not even asking for gratitude, but a little consideration would be nice. |
Note: in the past I used to never lock issues in these situations, because I thought it was unfair to not let the other person reply and possibly apologise publicly. But after years of that strategy bearing no fruit, I realised it is unfair to myself, other maintainers, and the respectful users to not do what I can to preserve our mental sanity, which we need to run a project of this magnitude. |
After the switch from adobe fonts to google fonts for Source Code Pro it reintroduced a similar bug that had happened before. Text shows no color.
5980799#diff-d3fce192d394c65db3038c0da2aafceb4550fa374d7c2ce0a86e43d220f8c7fe
5d66fbd#diff-d3fce192d394c65db3038c0da2aafceb4550fa374d7c2ce0a86e43d220f8c7fe
Reference:
#2639
Original issue on adobe repo that got patched:
adobe-fonts/source-code-pro#250
Working
![working](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2798097/116217972-5d51ea00-a74a-11eb-8f93-beec9656af91.png)
Not working
![not-working](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/2798097/116217976-5e831700-a74a-11eb-90ec-fffe6121debf.png)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: