On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 09:25:33AM +0700, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan wrote: > Package: libfreetype6 > Version: 2.5.2-2 > Followup-For: Bug #730742 > Control: reopen -1
> Dear Maintainer, > I also prefer Adobe rasterizer, to the point that my font packages, > namely fonts-tlwg-*, have switched from TTF to OTF due to the improved > quality it provides. The result was better control on glyph shapes > (because the fonts are developed using cubic splines) with smaller > installation size. > Switching back to the old engine causes regression on my fonts, especially > on terminal with dark background: > New engine: > http://linux.thai.net/~thep/shots/20140923-tlwgtypo-new-engine-2.png > Old engine: > http://linux.thai.net/~thep/shots/20140923-tlwgtypo-old-engine-2.png > New engine: > http://linux.thai.net/~thep/shots/20140923-tlwgtypo-new-engine-1.png > Old engine: > http://linux.thai.net/~thep/shots/20140923-tlwgtypo-old-engine-1.png > So, I agree with Jason Pleau that Adobe engine is preferred. > However, instead of providing alternative packages, I think the patch > should be reverted and the poorly-hinted Cantarell font be fixed instead, > as pointed out here in upstream mailing list (according to BubuXP's > comment #118 above): > https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/freetype/2014-01/msg00011.html > I've checked Cantarell font, and its hints are really poor as described. > I'm reopening the bug, so the discussion can be continued. So if this is only a problem with the GNOME3 default font, please get that font fixed in Debian, after which I am willing to reinstate the Adobe engine. But I'm not willing to enable it while it represents a regression vs. wheezy for a significant number of our desktop users. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
