On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 05:05:02PM -0700, Daniel Burrows wrote: > On Wednesday 13 July 2005 04:54 pm, Thomas Dickey wrote: > > The bad sample would be easier to compare if it used the same fontsize as > > the good one (and if I had some idea what the font resource settings in > > use were). Â Also - not sure whether this is a Debian patch issue, or my > > bug - it would be nice if you could compile/test the upstream package > > (whatever "xterm -v" says). > > They do use the same font size (called "Default" by xterm in both cases); > I'm not sure what you're getting at there. Maybe you mean that they have > different terminal sizes; I've updated the 'bad' one to use the same terminal > size as the 'good' one (for obvious reasons I can't take another 'good' > screenshot). The picture I see on the screen shows the bad one about 2/3 the width of the good one. > When I was using the Debian X packages, I just stuck to the default Debian > xterm settings; with the X.org stuff, I may have had some sort of mixture of > Debian and X.org settings (I'm not sure). It's hard to say - since I make a given patch, and then Debian may have that plus pieces from a following patch. With #201, I modified some of the logic that looks for a matching wide bold font (long story). One person commented that bold had changed as well - my guess was that a different font was selected - if you're running something that "xterm -v" says is #201 or later, it may be that (and with enough information I can see what's amiss). -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net
Attachment:
pgpa44rll3jyU.pgp
Description: PGP signature