Hi,
On 20/08/2018 21:36, Cág wrote:
and under the impression bitmap fonts are guaranteed to look bad by
design
Bitmap fonts are considered superior by some, and are used by a lot of
people. Go search for some tiling WM's screenshots, and you'll see :)
Also, if you don't like
Riccardo Mottola wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
> yes... it is using the "high res" console.
> Can't we fix the fonts inside DRM?
I don't think so, there must be a need for a new console driver...
Take a look at the code though, maybe there's a mention of the font
somewhere:
> I realize that I've maybe made a mistake by assigning a category
> matching a non-existing (ever? http://www.netbsd.org/ports/history.html)
> port to this PR. Would it make sense to offer just existing ports as
> port categories in PR submission form?
No, port-arm is a legitimate category. It
Hi,
gnats-ad...@netbsd.org wrote:
It has the internal identification `port-arm/53537'.
The individual assigned to look at your
report is: port-arm-maintainer.
Category: port-arm
Responsible:port-arm-maintainer
Synopsis: typo in src/sys/arch/arm/sunxi/sunxi_thermal.c
Hi,
Cág wrote:
Well, old VGA fonts could be modified with pcvt-utils, at least that's
what the guide says. This "high-res" font is kinda built-in into drm(4)
(correct me if I'm wrong), that's why you can't change it with
wsfontload(8).
yes... it is using the "high res" console.
Can't we fix
On Aug 19, 2018 2:06 PM, matthew sporleder wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2018 at 4:26 AM, Riccardo Mottola
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > On 19/08/2018 02:26, Matt Sporleder wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Can you do curl -vvv to GitHub?
> >
> >
> > hmm, if you mean just to the homepage like below, we have an
Hi Matthew,
On 19/08/2018 21:06, matthew sporleder wrote:
gdb tells me:
* TLSv1.2 (OUT), TLS change cipher, Client hello (1):
Thread 1 received signal SIGILL, Illegal instruction.
0xb66f3d50 in gcm_ghash_4bit_mmx () from /usr/lib/libcrypto.so.12
(gdb) bt
#0 0xb66f3d50 in gcm_ghash_4bit_mmx
