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

Re: Bug#235046: uxterm: fails to display characters



* Thomas Dickey <dickey@saltmine.radix.net> [2004:02:27:17:32:55-0000] scribed:
> Michael D. Schleif <mds@helices.org> wrote:
> > Package: xterm
> > Version: 4.2.1-12.1
> > Severity: important
> 
> > Recently, I have begun using uxterm exclusively, rather than simple
> > xterm.  I have not made any configuration changes to locales nor uxterm
> > recently.  I experience this problem on at least four (4) different
> > systems, some running kernel 2.4.24 and others 2.6.2.
> 
> > My best example is:
> 
> >    man spamassassin
> 
> > The first `Options' section does *NOT* display the leading `-' and `--'
> > characters.  The second `OPTIONS' section displays leading `-' and `--'
> > as expected.  As I write this, I have five (5) uxterms open on this
> > system, four (4) exhibit this problem, and one (1) displays this example
> > manpage as expected.
> 
> > To be honest, so far, I have only experienced this problem in manpages,
> > and I do not have evidence of other occurences.
> 
> > How can I facilitate troubleshooting this bug?
> 
> It's most likely a font problem (some fonts don't have the Unicode characters
> that groff's maintainer decided to use rather than ASCII).  The iso10646
> fonts tend to be complete enough for this purpose, though the ones I'm
> familiar with are are low quality.

Yes, I thought so, too; except that, of the six (6) uxterm's I currently
have up on this box, one (1) of them displays the example manpage
correctly.  I do not have any idea how this one can be different, since
I started all six in exactly the same way, and I have not made any
configuration changes.

What do you think?

-- 
Best Regards,

mds
mds resource
877.596.8237
-
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
-
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much
we think we know.  The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
--

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: