*taps on the glass* Anybody out there?
On 8/25/08, Charlie Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, anything else you want me to poke at, or is someone going to take > a look? For that matter, have you guys been able to duplicate the > problem? > > -FM > > On 8/23/08, Charlie Nolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It was at 2.3.7. I downgraded it to 2.3.5 temporarily, and it shows >> the same results as 2.3.7. >> >> -FM >> >> On 8/22/08, Lenard Lindstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> That's right for SDL_ttf. What freetype version does Gentoo have. Pygame >>> 1.8 uses freetype-2.3.5 on Windows. >>> >>> Lenard >>> >>> >>> Charlie Nolan wrote: >>>> SDL_ttf is at 2.0.9 on Linux, and after digging a bit, the SDL_ttf.dll >>>> that came with pygame shows version 2.0.9.0. Looks like a match to >>>> me. >>>> >>>> On 8/22/08, Brian Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> It may be a difference between different versions of SDL_ttf or of >>>>> freetype, >>>>> which may not be a bug if the new er behavior is part of a bug fix. >>>>> >>>>> So what version of SDL_ttf do you have on Windows and on Linux? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Charlie Nolan >>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I suspect this will just get passed upstream to SDL, but someone will >>>>>> need to translate for them. >>>>>> >>>>>> The "7" glyph in the attached font at size 21 behaves inconsistently >>>>>> on Windows (XP SP2) and Linux (Gentoo). Running the test script on >>>>>> the two systems, I get these results: >>>>>> >>>>>> Linux: >>>>>> (11, 16) >>>>>> (12, 16) >>>>>> >>>>>> <Surface(22x16x32 SW)> >>>>>> <Surface(22x16x32 SW)> >>>>>> >>>>>> [(0, 9, 0, 8, 11), (0, 9, 0, 8, 11)] >>>>>> [(0, 9, 0, 8, 11), (-1, 9, 0, 8, 11)] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Windows: >>>>>> (11, 16) >>>>>> (12, 16) >>>>>> >>>>>> <Surface(22x16x32 SW)> >>>>>> <Surface(23x16x32 SW)> >>>>>> >>>>>> [(0, 10, 0, 8, 11), (0, 10, 0, 8, 11)] >>>>>> [(0, 10, 0, 8, 11), (0, 11, 0, 8, 12)] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> My interpretation of this is that the 7 is behaving a bit screwy at >>>>>> that size. It renders as 12x16, but has an X offset of -1, for an >>>>>> effective size of 11x16. On Windows, the X offset appears to be lost, >>>>>> thus causing the glyph to incorrectly have an extra pixel of padding >>>>>> on the left. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm also puzzled as to why maxx is one larger on Windows, but that >>>>>> part doesn't seem to cause a problem. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>> >> >
