Re: XFree86 4.1.0 and Gtk+
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 10:32:09PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > Looking at various bug reports, I find myself mighty confused. I'm confused, too. Some applications I had which *were* exhibiting the problem, I thought, no longer do after an upgrade (an upgrade of everything, but it *didn't* involve new X packages: I already had upgraded those). Jules
Re: XFree86 4.1.0 and Gtk+
On Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 10:32:09PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > Looking at various bug reports, I find myself mighty confused. I'm confused, too. Some applications I had which *were* exhibiting the problem, I thought, no longer do after an upgrade (an upgrade of everything, but it *didn't* involve new X packages: I already had upgraded those). Jules -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
XFree86 4.1.0 and Gtk+
Looking at various bug reports, I find myself mighty confused. Checking XFree86 CVS, I have confirmed that the numeric reordering hack for core fonts did go into 4.1.0 (fontdir.c, 3.15 through 3.17, 3.17 is tagged all of xf-4_1_99_1, xf-4_1_0-bindist, xf-4_1_0, xf-4_1-branch, xf-4_0_99_902, xf-4_0_99_901, xf-4_0_99_900, dhd-20010817, HEAD). On the other hand, Debian bug reports seem to indicate that the Gtk+ problems did appear with 4.1.0. This definitely doesn't make sense to me. I only see three possible explanations. Either the upstream workaround is wrong, or Branden used an earlier version for 4.1.0 (rather unlikely), or else there's something misleading in Branden's packages that makes people install the iso10646-1 fonts without the corresponding 8859-1 ones. Could someone who can see the problem please send me the output of, say, xlsfonts -u -fn '-misc-fixed-medium-r-semicondensed--17-*-75-75-c-*-*-*' It most definitely does The Right Thing for me running upstream CVS. Juliusz
XFree86 4.1.0 and Gtk+
Looking at various bug reports, I find myself mighty confused. Checking XFree86 CVS, I have confirmed that the numeric reordering hack for core fonts did go into 4.1.0 (fontdir.c, 3.15 through 3.17, 3.17 is tagged all of xf-4_1_99_1, xf-4_1_0-bindist, xf-4_1_0, xf-4_1-branch, xf-4_0_99_902, xf-4_0_99_901, xf-4_0_99_900, dhd-20010817, HEAD). On the other hand, Debian bug reports seem to indicate that the Gtk+ problems did appear with 4.1.0. This definitely doesn't make sense to me. I only see three possible explanations. Either the upstream workaround is wrong, or Branden used an earlier version for 4.1.0 (rather unlikely), or else there's something misleading in Branden's packages that makes people install the iso10646-1 fonts without the corresponding 8859-1 ones. Could someone who can see the problem please send me the output of, say, xlsfonts -u -fn '-misc-fixed-medium-r-semicondensed--17-*-75-75-c-*-*-*' It most definitely does The Right Thing for me running upstream CVS. Juliusz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
