> Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 22:34:35 +0100
> From: lf...@cruziero.com (akhiezer)
>
> > From: rhubarbpie...@gmail.com
> > Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 06:41:24 -0500
> [...]
> >
> > This problem returned in BLFS 8.0 but with a twist as neither method I
> > used in 7.10 works. But deleting/renaming
> >
> From: rhubarbpie...@gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 06:41:24 -0500
[...]
>
> This problem returned in BLFS 8.0 but with a twist as neither method I
> used in 7.10 works. But deleting/renaming
> /etc/fonts/conf.d/10-hinting-slight.conf plus adding the following to
> /etc/profile works:
>
>
On Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:39:26 -0500
rhubarbpie...@gmail.com wrote:
> However, the gist of the post was correct.
Yep, for the record in case someone ever runs into this, at least on
your system, freetype will yield a lighter font iff: (1) hintfull
is being used *and* (2) version 35 of the freetype
I have a correction to my 04/07/17 post. /etc/fonts/local.conf with
hintstyle set to hintfull can exist. In fact, on my box it must exist
for crisper fonts if /etc/fonts/conf.d/10-hinting-slight.conf is present.
However, the gist of the post was correct. On my box, with or without
This problem returned in BLFS 8.0 but with a twist as neither method I
used in 7.10 works. But deleting/renaming
/etc/fonts/conf.d/10-hinting-slight.conf plus adding the following to
/etc/profile works:
export FREETYPE_PROPERTIES="truetype:interpreter-version=35
cff:no-stem-darkening=1
I found simply deleting or renaming
/etc/fonts/conf.d/10-hinting-slight.conf restores the less bold fonts I
had in BLFS 7.9. I believe another solution is to use the following
code in /etc/fonts/local.conf:
true
hintfull
false
This is not a BLFS
True, a quick diff didn't highlight that. My 7.10 desktop is
powered off at the moment, and those symlinks actually point to
/usr/share/fontconfig/conf.avail in my case - I looked at my
first-stage backups, in /staging on my server, but of course the
links are broken when I do that.
A (very)
On Sat, Sep 24, 2016 at 04:01:15PM -0400, Michael Shell wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 01:41:18 +0100
> Ken Moffat wrote:
>
> > I've just had the opportunity to compare /etc/fonts/fonts.conf in
> > 7.9 and 7.10. Yes, they do differ in size by about 3.5K. The
> > reason
On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 01:41:18 +0100
Ken Moffat wrote:
> I've just had the opportunity to compare /etc/fonts/fonts.conf in
> 7.9 and 7.10. Yes, they do differ in size by about 3.5K. The
> reason is that the table of valid blank characters almost at the end
> of the file
On 09/23/2016 07:41 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 02:26:02PM -0500, rhubarbpie...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought fontconfig creates /etc/fonts/fonts.conf and the files differ
between 7.9 and 7.10. In fact they differ significantly in size. It seems
compiling fontconfig is pretty
On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 14:26:02 -0500
rhubarbpie...@gmail.com wrote:
> I don't understand how to get the freetype version, I see only
> freetype-config as the installed freetype program.
That one can reveal it with the proper chant:
freetype-config --ftversion
> fontconfig-2.11.1
On 09/21/2016 09:09 PM, Michael Shell wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 16:30:57 -0500
rhubarbpie...@gmail.com wrote:
antialias - Changing the antialias setting from 'true' to 'false' helped
significantly. The fonts are just a touch 'blotchy' but the bold
problem is eliminated. However, if I
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 16:30:57 -0500
rhubarbpie...@gmail.com wrote:
> antialias - Changing the antialias setting from 'true' to 'false' helped
> significantly. The fonts are just a touch 'blotchy' but the bold
> problem is eliminated. However, if I change /etc/fonts/local.conf to
> include
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 04:30:57PM -0500, rhubarbpie...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > For the lcdfilter, try lcdlight or lcdnone in place of lcddefault and see
> > what happens.
> >
> > Please do let us know if you learn anything in this regard because
> > in the future others will probably run into
For the lcdfilter, try lcdlight or lcdnone in place of lcddefault and see
what happens.
Please do let us know if you learn anything in this regard because
in the future others will probably run into the same problem.
Cheers,
Mike Shell
I admire your dedication to this and your
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 06:56:24 -0500
rhubarbpie...@gmail.com wrote:
> Perhaps things differ by box, but your file accentuates what I got with
> the standard 7.10 fontconfig. It produces fonts bolder than I like.
> ... It's good to know I can fight back should the problem worsen with
> future
On 09/19/2016 02:53 PM, Michael Shell wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 19:29:19 +0100
Ken Moffat wrote:
The internet has a plethora of suggestions for tweaking what happens
in fontconfig.
The quality of on-screen font rendering under Linux has long irked me.
It seems that
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 19:29:19 +0100
Ken Moffat wrote:
> The internet has a plethora of suggestions for tweaking what happens
> in fontconfig.
The quality of on-screen font rendering under Linux has long irked me.
It seems that after I finally get things the way I like,
I've run BLFS 7.10 for several days and noticed less clear fonts than
with 7.9. I reinstalled from square one without success and don't see
my error.
As a test, I reinstalled BLFS 7.10, but with BLFS 7.9 dejavu and
fontconfig packages (dejavu-fonts-ttf-2.35 and fontconfig-2.11.1) and my
19 matches
Mail list logo