[Bug 480453] [foobillard] Adapt to font package renamings
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=480453 Miloslav Trmač m...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE --- Comment #4 from Miloslav Trmač m...@redhat.com 2009-03-12 06:20:40 EDT --- Fixed by Jesse Keating in foobillard-3.0a-12. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 489833] Default Font Rendering is Poor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489833 --- Comment #2 from Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net 2009-03-12 07:52:10 EDT --- 1. OO.o behaves differently since it uses a different text stack. This is being fixed upstream, you can ask OO.o devs to accelerate the move to pango/cairo if you like 2. GNOME font sizes are different: this is a result of GNOME allowing the overloading of DPI value in gconf instead of using the Xorg DPI value as everything else. Complain GNOME-side. DE people need to be hit with a huge cluestick and leave DPI to X (and modify this value at the X level if needed not in private overlays others apps do not see) 3. Cleartype. Not going to happen for legal reasons. Additionnaly it only performs good on very specific hardware, and very specific fonts (MS fonts which have bugs cleartype hides; we're not going to optimise our display for fonts we do not ship to the detriment of fonts we do ship). For every comment you'll find on the net praising those patches you'll find three stating they suck and make things worse. (likewise for Ubuntu vs Fedora text rendering) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 489833] Default Font Rendering is Poor
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489833 --- Comment #3 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org 2009-03-12 11:06:41 EDT --- ad 2. It's not that. My screen reports a resolution which is basically 96×96 dpi, and I even tried forcing both KDE and GNOME to exactly that, GTK+ apps still display larger fonts at the same size. Only when setting GTK+/GNOME to 94 dpi did I get approximately the same size (but not quite as nice looking fonts as with 96 dpi, though I got used to that). What happens is that if I turn down the hinting (autohinter, mind you, I don't have freetype-freeworld installed, I only maintain it ;-) ), the effect disappears (but the fonts look bad), the stronger the (auto)hinting, the larger GTK+'s fonts get and the smaller Qt's. Somehow they use different algorithms. :-( -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 477481] [wastesedge] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477481 Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235(FE-Legal)| --- Comment #20 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2009-03-12 11:29:29 EDT --- Lifting FE-Legal. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 489928] FreeType 2.3.8 is not binary compatible to version 2.3.7
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489928 --- Comment #2 from Kevin Kofler ke...@tigcc.ticalc.org 2009-03-12 11:44:21 EDT --- And FWIW, the impact on Rawhide should be low to none due to the mass rebuild. Still, I think it should probably be upgraded to 2.3.9. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 489919] Unable to view any PS/EPS files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489919 --- Comment #1 from Uday Kumar udayre...@gmail.com 2009-03-12 12:03:22 EDT --- the problem seems to be font related. for eg. when i try to do an epstopdf on the attached file, i get $ epstopdf /tmp/clock-freq.eps Error: /invalidfont in /findfont Operand stack: Symbol-Oblique Symbol Execution stack: %interp_exit .runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- false 1 %stopped_push 1905 1 3 %oparray_pop 1904 1 3 %oparray_pop --nostringval-- 1888 1 3 %oparray_pop 1771 1 3 %oparray_pop --nostringval-- %errorexec_pop .runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push --nostringval-- 1863 2 4 %oparray_pop Dictionary stack: --dict:1149/1684(ro)(G)-- --dict:0/20(G)-- --dict:75/200(L)-- --dict:169/256(L)-- Current allocation mode is local Last OS error: 2 GPL Ghostscript 8.63: Unrecoverable error, exit code 1 now, when i run the same on the f9 machine that doesn't have this problem, it converts it to pdf just fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 489919] Unable to view any PS/EPS files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489919 --- Comment #2 from Uday Kumar udayre...@gmail.com 2009-03-12 12:14:47 EDT --- on further investigation, i found that everything in my /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/ was missing. can't gv or evince be more verbose when they fail? the unix philosophy has always been to be silent when everything goes fine and fail as noisily as possible when failing. is there some way these files were deleted automatically, besides a file system thrash? $ sudo rpm --verify urw-fonts missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/a010013l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/a010013l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/a010015l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/a010015l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/a010033l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/a010033l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/a010035l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/a010035l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/b018012l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/b018012l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/b018015l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/b018015l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/b018032l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/b018032l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/b018035l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/b018035l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/c059013l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/c059013l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/c059016l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/c059016l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/c059033l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/c059033l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/c059036l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/c059036l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/d05l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/d05l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n019003l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n019003l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n019004l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n019004l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n019023l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n019023l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n019024l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n019024l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n019043l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n019043l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n019044l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n019044l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n019063l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n019063l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n019064l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n019064l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n021003l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n021003l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n021004l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n021004l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n021023l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n021023l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n021024l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n021024l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n022003l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n022003l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n022004l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n022004l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n022023l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n022023l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n022024l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/n022024l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/p052003l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/p052003l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/p052004l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/p052004l.pfb missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/p052023l.afm missing /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1/p052023l.pfb
[Bug 489919] Unable to view any PS/EPS files
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489919 Uday Kumar udayre...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||t...@redhat.com Component|xorg-x11-fonts |urw-fonts -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 487912] Unable to upgrade apanov-edrip-fonts, due to i18n provide issue
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487912 seth vidal svi...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo? --- Comment #19 from seth vidal svi...@redhat.com 2009-03-12 12:44:01 EDT --- latest rawhide pkg yum-3.2.21-14 has a patch that I believe fixes this problem entirely. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 489928] FreeType 2.3.8 is not binary compatible to version 2.3.7
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489928 Adam Goode a...@spicenitz.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a...@spicenitz.org --- Comment #3 from Adam Goode a...@spicenitz.org 2009-03-12 20:46:04 EDT --- This upgrade will also require rebuilding all freetype-using applcations, correct? At least the ones with 'PS_FontInfo' or 'PS_Font_Info'. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
[Bug 477403] [jomolhari-fonts] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=477403 Rajeesh rajeeshknamb...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rajeeshknamb...@gmail.com --- Comment #5 from Rajeesh rajeeshknamb...@gmail.com 2009-03-13 01:44:57 EDT --- Hi, To help with adopting the new font packages guidelines, I have made the changes to the SPEC file and uploaded to http://rajeeshknambiar.fedorapeople.org/jomolhari-fonts.spec Please refer and make the changes. Thanks! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ Fedora-fonts-bugs-list mailing list Fedora-fonts-bugs-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-fonts-bugs-list
