Syriac language not showing in catro

[Rawwoi]

Expected behavior

Syriac language showing in carto (it was working before for years, it stop showing in the last days)

Actual behavior

Syriac language showing as "▯▯▯▯"...

Links and screenshots illustrating the problem

screenshot before and after: https://i.ibb.co/SQq0xCz/image.png

one of the examples:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/1972159484

[imagico]

Thanks for the report.

https://mc.bbbike.org/mc/?lon=43.122217&lat=36.491356&zoom=15&num=3&mt0=cyclosm&mt1=mapnik&mt2=mapnik-german

Since there have not been any changes to the font lists this could be deployment specific (see #4490, #4602).

All the labels that show this problem i could see are cases where the name tag contains a compound labeling string rather than a single name. Do you have any cases where the problem occurs with a plain Syriac name in the name tag?

[mmd-osm]

This might be a side effect of upgrading tile servers to Ubuntu 22.04 along with this change: openstreetmap/chef@6c1eca2

https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations would be a good place to report this issue.

[pnorman]

I get this on Debian, and it's fixed by #4606 so it's either a font issue or a font ordering issue as opposed to a mapnik, harfbuzz, or fontconfig issue.

[sommerluk]

Noto Sans Syriac had three styles, each as a separate font file, in the past. We used one of these three font files.

These three font files in the meantime have been merged into one single file. Therefore, the old font name does not work any more when updating the Noto fonts to a newer version.

However, Noto plans to separate the three styles again into three separate font files in the future.

[pnorman]

Noto Sans Syriac had three styles, each as a separate font file, in the past. We used one of these three font files.

These three font files in the meantime have been merged into one single file. Therefore, the old font name does not work any more when updating the Noto fonts to a newer version.

I don't think this matters for this particular issue, since the fonts shouldn't be different between 20.04 and 22.04 according to the package information. It does matter with #4606, since we'll have to make changes when Noto separates the styles again.