Bug#131336: more information

[Matt Swift <swift@alum.mit.edu>]

I believe I responded to this question on 29 June 2003 by sending a
tarball with two X-windows screen dumps.  I can download the tarball
today by visiting

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi/testdvi.tgz?bug=131336&msg=12&att=1

As I remarked, this difference may not be noticeable with another
Metafont mode.  At the moment I do not recall exactly why "ricoh" is a
better mode choice than "cx" (I think the default) for XDvi PK fonts,
but if "cx" looks as bad as the T1 does on my system, then neither is
acceptable.  

In any case, further discussion of this issue should perhaps be split
off into another report.  The original report was about the X
resources, and that seems to have been resolved now.  This subject
came up because of the question, why would someone want to avoid using
T1lib if it was available, and because of that comment I quoted in the
man page that upstream wants to hear about circumstances in which
T1lib is inferior to using PKs -- and I think no one would prefer the
T1 screen dump I sent to the PK one.



>> "S" == Stefan wrote:

    >> > I can't see any difference in output between `xdvi -not1lib' and
    >> > `xdvi' with xdvik-22.40v, which AFAIK is the version used in
    >> > tetex-2.0.2 (please verify with `xdvi.bin -version'). What's
    >> > the problem with the display?
    >> >
    >> > Otherwise, if the xdvi used is really an older version, this sounds
    >> > like a duplicate of #171344 to me.
    >> 
    >> Did you have some further discussion on this - is there more about the
    >> bug besides the issue fixed in 22.40v?

    S> No new information about that one.