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

Re: Arial 9pt



On March 9, 2003 12:28, Thomas Ritter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> after 1-2 weeks I updated my KDE 3.1 - sid yesterday. After having rebooted
> today morning, my Arial 9pt font is wrecked up. I checked the fonts.conf
> etc - the fonts get listed as they should and everything, even AA works.
> But sadly, just in Arial 9pt (all other sizes are okay, but that is my
> preferred font size) the "o"s and "a"s are badly crippled - all other font
> sizes are okay.
> I might have a slightly different setting from other people as my old 20"
> monitor isn't exaltly 4:3 and I told that to X. Up to the yesterday update
> everything looked fine.
> Can Anyone tell what did this?
>
> --
> Thomas Ritter
>
> Fight against TCPA - http://www.againsttcpa.com/index.shtml

I'm seeing something similar here.  With the arial font I'm getting the exact 
same behaver, but at 12pt.  Additionally I and some other people that I know 
who run kde on Debian/sid have noticed that most of the true type fonts look 
"wrong", with the afore mentioned problem with Arial being the most 
pronounced of the group.  I think that the culprit is one of the packages 
that went into sid on Thursday or Friday (based on when I started noticing 
the problems).

I'm also seeing an issue with the spacing of the fixed width fonts.  It 
appears that for many of them, the column is double the width of the of the 
font (the effected fonts are: Clean, Console, Gothic, Impact, Mincho, Nil and 
Song Ti).  I applied the update to /etc/fonts/local.conf which was suggested 
in another tread, but it has not had any effect on these fonts.  If it makes 
any difference, I have the following font packages installed: xfonts-base, 
xfonts-75dpi, xfonts-konsole xfonts-scalable, x-ttcidfont-conf, and 
nsttcorefonts.  Finally X is set to use 75dpi fonts.

If anyone has any ideas on how to fix the problem, or which package(s) need to 
have bug reports filed against them, I'd be happy to hear about it.

James




Reply to: