Hi,
Currently, freetype i386 and x86-64 collide in the following files:
/usr/bin/freetype-config
/usr/include/freetype2/freetype/config/ftconfig.h
This makes installation of two freetype development kits impossible.
Installing two development kits is desirable when the developer does
plenty of cr
Hi,
> The question isn't stupid at all. The difference comes from the TrueType
> bytecode specification, which makes a specific distinction between these
> two scaling modes.
> I can't remember the details though...
Hmm... the truetype driver doesn't seem to distinguish them. Is it
unimplemented
Hello,
>
> > I also have a (maybe stupid) question. Why don't we simply have
> >
> > FT_Set_Pixel_Sizes( face, w, h )
> > {
> > FT_Set_Char_Size( face, w, h, 72, 72 ):
> > }
> >
> > ?
> (More looking forward to comments on this question actually)
>
The question isn't stupid at all. The diffe
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 11:53:01AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> How do you come to this conclusion? The original BDF specification
> (found in the X11 distribution) says that both FONT_ASCENT and
> FONT_DESCENT are *logical* values. They don't guarantee that all
> bitmap glyphs are within this
>
> This means that setting the pixel size to, say, 8x8 doesn't
> guarantee in any way that you get glyph bitmaps that all fit within
> an 8x8 cell (sometimes even far from it).
>
> ...
>
> For BDF and PCF formats, this function uses the sum of the
> `FONT_ASCENT' and `FONT_DESCENT' properties o
