Re: [ft-devel] zos / ebcdic platform

2006-01-28 Thread Werner LEMBERG
> I've done tests on zos (an ebcdic platform) with freetype2 2.1.10 > and also with the last version. Some changes in tttags.h were > necessary to get things working. Some binary tags are compared with > os dependant strings and tags can't be found. True type files now > work in both versions but

Re: [ft-devel] More crashes on ARM

2006-01-28 Thread Werner LEMBERG
> A segfault happens in this function: > > TT_Access_Glyph_Frame( [...] > > which is called from (a fontconfig function): > > GetScriptTags( [...] > > if (( error = tt_face->goto_table( tt_face, tabletag, stream, 0 ) )) > < > return error; > > #0 TT_Access_Glyph_Frame (loade

Re: [ft-devel] patch requested for freetype2/internal header usage (using font_bbox)

2006-01-28 Thread Drew Parsons
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 11:19 +1100, Drew Parsons wrote: > > > > > > > > I guess the simpler way is to use a Type 1 font to display the web page > > (ttheader will be undefined). > > I fear that won't do. ps/psout_ft.c splits the logic, using > psout_ftpstype1.c (and ttf2pt1) if the font is type

[ft-devel] zos / ebcdic platform

2006-01-28 Thread regis bertrand
Hello,I've done tests on zos (an ebcdic platform) with freetype2 2.1.10 and also with the last version. Some changes in tttags.h were necessary to get things working. Some binary tags are compared with os dependant strings and tags can't be found. True type files now work in both versions

Re: [ft-devel] More crashes on ARM

2006-01-28 Thread David Turner
Ahh, your version of FontConfig is accessing internal fields of FreeType, and you probably have a version of FreeType installed on your system that is more recent than the one fontconfig was compiled with. this also explains the parameter insanity. try installing fontconfig-2.3.93 or higher, thi

Re: [ft-devel] Re: FreeType issues

2006-01-28 Thread Owen Taylor
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 03:57 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > Hi Werner, > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 09:12:46AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > > I've read your very interesting mail at > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/11/msg00016.html > > > What's your recommendation in