[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

annoying changes in gnome-terminal

1. In gnome terminal I've been using the font `Bitstream Vera Sans Mono 10',
   which was a good size for me.  However after doing an apt-get upgrade
   from unstable yesterday (the actual change may have been earlier, as I
   just got back from a week-long holiday; my previous `working' apt-get
   upgrade was a little over a week ago), it now is _not_ a good size, it's
   suddenly much bigger.  The next lower size of that font (9) is the _same_
   width (only the _height_ of the character change!), and the next-next
   lower size (8) is much smaller (too small); I now can't seem to select a
   good size of this font in gnome terminal at all.

   Other than the apt-get upgrade, I didn't change any settings.

   The weird thing is that in other gnome apps, and in emacs, I can still
   select my `preferred size' just fine.  E.g., in gedit, I can select
   `Bitstream Vera Sans Mono 9' and that's the same font that I used to get in
   gnome-terminal with size 10.

   In emacs, I use the following x font spec:

      -bitstream-bitstream vera sans mono-medium-r-normal-*-*-100-*-*-*-*-*-*

   which gets me the font I want:

      -bitstream-bitstream vera sans mono-medium-r-normal--10-86-83-84-m-60-iso8859-1

2. Another new problem with gnome-terminal is that it's no longer displaying
   Japanese characters correctly; it used to work with no special effort,
   but now japanese characters output from commands are displayed as little
   empty boxes.  I use LANG set to `ja_JP.eucJP' (set from gdm), and again
   things seem to work properly in gedit and emacs (so at least I know it's
   probably not a installed-font problem or something).

I don't know why only gnome-terminal seems to be affected, but then fonts in
debian are a big fragile glump to me; I guess I was lucky that things worked
for even a short while...:-(

So ... any ideas?  Has anyone heard of similar problems, or have a clue
where the trouble actually lies?


`...the Soviet Union was sliding in to an economic collapse so comprehensive
 that in the end its factories produced not goods but bads: finished products
 less valuable than the raw materials they were made from.'  [The Economist]

Reply to: