Installing Wine's fonts system-wide: which ones are worthwhile?

Scott Ritchie scott at
Fri Jul 11 17:42:42 CDT 2008

Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
> Scott Ritchie wrote:
>> After being partially inspired by Ubuntu brainstorm, it occurred to me
>> that some of our fonts would be useful everywhere, but the current Wine
>> package keeps its fonts to itself.  Tahoma, for instance, could be
>> useful if someone tries to open a Word document in Open Office.
>> The solution varies across distributions, however in Ubuntu and Debian's
>> case it means naming the fonts specifically and creating a hints file.
>> So, which ones should be installed this way?
> It used to make some difference, but lately with the Liberation fonts,
> it doesn't any more.
> If you insist, just dropping the fonts into ${HOME}/.fonts for a per-user
> basis (all applications of this user), or /usr/share/fonts or
> thereabouts for
> truly system-wise installation. I don't think you need to name the fonts
> specially or doing anything with hints or whatever. Sym-links also work,
> I believe.
Liberation fonts doesn't include Tahoma, however.  On Ubuntu, the
liberation fonts also not installed by default.  Which brings up a
related question: should the Wine package depend on them?  It seems like
having liberation fonts available would be helpful to Wine, and
therefore they should be installed when Wine is.

On Debian systems, font packages are also supposed to have special
configuration files so they can be handled properly by the font manager.
 I'll write these, but the point is it's not quite as simple as changing
the install path to do it correctly.

Regardless, there's still the question of which Wine fonts to do this
with.  Just Tahoma?  Or more?

Scott Ritchie

More information about the wine-devel mailing list