The theory here was that the two groups would be used independently:
* The old, simple naming. (A base name, and effectively two flags, one for Bold, one for Italic)
* The new, detailed naming. (Base Family, weights, obliqueness angles, full-text subnames ... the full works)
I think the situation we're getting into with (something in) the stack that Inkscape and/or GNOME are using is that data from both sets is being used. So probably the Bold "flag" is being seen on both of the fonts and therefore the second being discarded. The actual raw FontConfig data:
The theory here was that the two groups would be used independently:
* The old, simple naming. (A base name, and effectively two flags, one for Bold, one for Italic)
* The new, detailed naming. (Base Family, weights, obliqueness angles, full-text subnames ... the full works)
I think the situation we're getting into with (something in) the stack that Inkscape and/or GNOME are using is that data from both sets is being used. So probably the Bold "flag" is being seen on both of the fonts and therefore the second being discarded. The actual raw FontConfig data:
$ fc-list | grep Ubuntu | grep -v Mono Light,Regular style=Italic eta:style= Regular eta:style= Regular style=Regular Medium, Bold
Ubuntu,Ubuntu Light:style=
Ubuntu:style=Bold Italic
Ubuntu:style=Bold
Ubuntu:
UbuntuHebrewB
Ubuntu,Ubuntu Light:style=Medium Italic,Bold Italic
UbuntuArabicB
Ubuntu,Ubuntu Light:style=Light Italic,Italic
Ubuntu:
Ubuntu,Ubuntu Light:style=