Hi Josh,

Thank you for the clarification.

I had already forced my code to use `regular`, so I wanted to confirm one
point:

If I purchase Font Awesome Pro, can I keep my existing Font Awesome 5 icons
working after upgrading Royale, assuming I point my HTML to my own licensed
Font Awesome Pro files instead of the default one loaded by Royale?

In other words, if I load the Pro version myself, should everything
continue to work as before on my current codebase, without requiring major
changes in Royale beyond that setup?

Best regards,
Hugo

Josh Tynjala <[email protected]> escreveu (sábado, 28/03/2026 à(s)
17:17):

> The default for faStyle changed from regular to solid because there are way
> more free solid icons than free regular icons. You might be able to get
> some of the missing icons working by setting their faStyle property.
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/commit/5bc236c5be38cca0fa4f46a4fa218506cdc12cc9
>
> However, a bigger, but necessary, change is that we’re now loading Font
> Awesome Free. Before, we were loading the Pro version. However, that’s not
> really compatible with our license. So we had to switch to Free. Free has
> fewer icons than Pro, so some of the icons you were using may not be
> available anymore.
>
> That being said, anyone can make their own custom component that loads the
> Pro version of Font Awesome instead. It just can’t be included with Royale.
>
> --
> Josh Tynjala
> Bowler Hat LLC
> https://bowlerhat.dev/
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2026 at 5:57 PM Hugo Ferreira <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I had not updated the framework in a very long time.
> >
> > I finally want to spend some time fixing a very old DataGrid bug, but
> > before doing that I updated the framework on my side.
> >
> > After the update, almost all icons disappeared from my application menu.
> > For example, FontAwesome5IconType.DUMPSTER no longer appears, while
> > FontAwesome5IconType.BUILDING still works.
> >
> > So far, this seems to affect most of the FontAwesome 5 icons I use, not
> > just a single one.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Hugo.
> >
>

Reply via email to