On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:07:19AM +0100, Huw Davies wrote:
> ---
> fonts/wingding.sfd | 86 +
Please ignore this one and use 'try 2'.
I had the points of one glyph selected in the outline editor which
apparently gets saved to the .sfd .
Huw.
; +}
> +vertical_fonts[vertical_count] = strdupW(buffer);
> + vertical_count++;
That seems overly complicated. We already put the fonts in a list, it
shouldn't be hard to reorder it, or use a temp list for vertical fonts,
or something like that.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
Aric Stewart wrote:
> +ascent = GET_BE_WORD(tt_os2.usWinAscent);
> +descent = GET_BE_WORD(tt_os2.usWinDescent);
> +cell_height = ascent + descent;
> +ok(ntm->ntmCellHeight == cell_height, "%s: ntmCellHeight %u != %u,
> os2.usWinAscent/os2.usWinDescent %u/%u\n",
>
On Thu, 16 May 2013 17:09:40 +0200, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> > fonts/tahoma.sfd | 94
> > +-----
> > fonts/tahoma.ttf | Bin 100420 -> 97836 bytes
> > 2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
>
Akihiro Sagawa writes:
> ---
> fonts/tahoma.sfd | 94
> +-
> fonts/tahoma.ttf | Bin 100420 -> 97836 bytes
> 2 files changed, 50 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
We already have .notdef, we shouldn't need a sec
On 05/07/2013 08:15 AM, Sam Edwards wrote:
On 05/06/2013 03:05 PM, Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
Just to make this clear, the most recent version of this patch is such
a graceful handling, right?
I haven't worked on gdi32/freetype.c much, so I wouldn't be the one to
say for sure (you should prob
On 05/06/2013 03:05 PM, Max TenEyck Woodbury wrote:
Just to make this clear, the most recent version of this patch is such
a graceful handling, right?
I haven't worked on gdi32/freetype.c much, so I wouldn't be the one to
say for sure (you should probably talk to Alexandre Julliard, Dmitry
Ti
Qian Hong writes:
> IMO the best solution is to correctly implement RemoveFontResource()
> so Bug 8292 will be fixed, then we don't need to worry about the
> broken test in usp10, which is the original reason for this patch.
>
> Would you like me send this patch which is still an improvement, or
e6a9c56a206519e7214ccf8a4a66b8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Qian Hong
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 03:19:58 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] gdi32: Ignore fonts in enum_face_charsets if OpenFontFace
fails.
Reply-To: wine-devel@winehq.org
To: wine-patc...@winehq.org
---
dlls/gdi32/freetype.c | 17 ++
Qian Hong writes:
> dlls/gdi32/freetype.c | 17 +++--
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
It's causing a test failure:
../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M gdiplus.dll -T ../../.. -p
gdiplus_test.exe.so font.c && touch font.ok
font.c:400: Test failed: Expected 0,
behaviour, what Windows version
> > does return "Liberation Sans" in this test?
>
> Obviously none, though it seems to a reasonable adjustment, since the
> Liberation team can't use the Arial name. We already do something
> similar in dlls/gdi32/freetype.c for lib
t; The tests are supposed to reflect Windows behaviour, what Windows version
> does return "Liberation Sans" in this test?
Obviously none, though it seems to a reasonable adjustment, since the
Liberation team can't use the Arial name. We already do something
similar in dlls/gdi32/freetype.c for liberation mono/sans/serif fonts.
--
-Austin
Austin English wrote:
> +ok(!lstrcmp(lf.lfFaceName, "Arial") ||
> + !lstrcmp(lf.lfFaceName, "Liberation Sans"), "wrong face name %s\n",
> lf.lfFaceName);
The tests are supposed to reflect Windows behaviour, what Windows version
does return "Liberation Sans" in this test?
--
Dmitry.
Hello,
Please ignore this series of patch, I'll provide a fix for the failure test.
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=21462
Your paranoid android
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=21461
Your paranoid android
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> > What I have done is a comparison of screenshots of the affected application
> > produced under Windows and Wine. If there will be a need in futher
> > improvements
> > I'll certainly have a look what can be enhanced.
>
> Once again, have you explicitly tested 32-pi
Dmitry Timoshkov writes:
>> Have you actually tested it with characters 32-pixel wide, and confirmed
>> that Windows messes them up the same way?
>
> What I have done is a comparison of screenshots of the affected application
> produced under Windows and Wine. If there will be a need in futher
>
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> >> You did get a comment from Huw that you need to allocate extra bytes,
> >> you still haven't done that AFAICS.
> >
> > That was a just a question, to which I had answered. There are the tests,
> > and the app which needs t
h I had answered. There are the tests,
> and the app which needs this functionality (and uses various fonts with
> different font sizes) works just fine with current approach.
Have you actually tested it with characters 32-pixel wide, and confirmed
that Windows messes them up the same way?
&g
s this functionality (and uses various fonts with
different font sizes) works just fine with current approach. Besides,
status of the patches was New, both for the test and this implementation.
--
Dmitry.
Dmitry Timoshkov writes:
> Any chance for at least a comment?
You did get a comment from Huw that you need to allocate extra bytes,
you still haven't done that AFAICS.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 6:52 AM, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> ---
> dlls/gdi32/freetype.c | 35 +++-
> dlls/gdi32/tests/font.c | 83
> ++-
> 2 files changed, 116 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
I don't know if this patch was directly
Hello,
Any feedback on this patch?
--
Dmitry.
Huw Davies wrote:
> > > Don't we need to add some bytes if glyph_width % 32 == 0 ?
> >
> > Well, I didn't see in my tests a need for that.
>
> That may be because your tests are just looking at the font metrics
> and not at the glyphs themselves...
I have an application that actually needs tha
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 05:51:20PM +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> Huw Davies wrote:
>
> > Don't we need to add some bytes if glyph_width % 32 == 0 ?
>
> Well, I didn't see in my tests a need for that.
That may be because your tests are just looking at the font metrics
and not at the glyphs th
Huw Davies wrote:
> Don't we need to add some bytes if glyph_width % 32 == 0 ?
Well, I didn't see in my tests a need for that.
--
Dmitry.
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 04:37:39PM +0900, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> diff --git a/dlls/gdi32/freetype.c b/dlls/gdi32/freetype.c
> index 0a5d3c3..eb3f9b5 100644
> --- a/dlls/gdi32/freetype.c
> +++ b/dlls/gdi32/freetype.c
> @@ -5669,12 +5669,27 @@ static inline BYTE get_max_level( UINT format )
>
Forgot to note that this is a resend.
On Apr 4, 2012, at 5:40 PM, Ken Thomases wrote:
>
> This reverts commit 85a71387dac1ca3ad47970800c8c01743681b528.
> ---
> dlls/gdi32/freetype.c | 17 +
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> <0001
Hi,
While running your changed tests on Windows, I think I found new failures.
Being a bot and all I'm not very good at pattern recognition, so I might be
wrong, but could you please double-check?
Full results can be found at
http://testbot.winehq.org/JobDetails.pl?Key=15834
Your paranoid android
anoid android.
=== W2KPROSP4 (32 bit font) ===
font.c:4105: Test failed: AddFontResourceExA should add 2 fonts from
vertical.ttf
font.c:4083: Test failed: GetGlyphOutlineW failed
font.c:4108: Test failed: @WineTestVertical is not installed
font.c:4109: Test failed: @WineTestVertical is not selected
f
Hi Per,
On 04-11-10 14:38, Per Olesen wrote:
Hi!
I am trying to figure out how wine reads fonts on startup but am having a little trouble.
I checked out the source and found a lot of good stuff in
"winex11.drv/xfont.c", but I am not sure this is actually the code, that gets
exe
Hi!
I am trying to figure out how wine reads fonts on startup but am having a
little trouble. I checked out the source and found a lot of good stuff in
"winex11.drv/xfont.c", but I am not sure this is actually the code, that gets
executed when my wine boots. What I experience, is
There are a number of test failures due to hardcoded sizes in test
which fail for particular platforms, e.g.
http://test.winehq.org/data/6e89a61446088dbe029913896dfae467bb8d37a1/xp_wtb-wxpprojasp3/comctl32:toolbar.html
It seems the reason for this is that it is impossible to select the
system fon
Aric Stewart writes:
> So return a proper error instead of generating unexpected garbage
> ---
> dlls/usp10/usp10.c |5 -
> 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
It fails the tests:
../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M usp10.dll -T ../../.. -p usp10_test.exe.so
usp10.c && t
>> Is there a meaningful difference in the two licenses for fonts? LGPL
>> is necessary for code, which gets loaded at runtime to a closed-source
>> executable, but fonts contain no code, and thus aren't loaded.
>
> A good point, but I'm not qualified to ans
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Juan Lang wrote:
>>> Along those lines, the hard drive space is cheap on this one. Seems
>>> like Wine packagers could just include the fonts and install them
>>> locally in c:\windows\fonts.
>>
>> The Liberation fonts
>> Along those lines, the hard drive space is cheap on this one. Seems
>> like Wine packagers could just include the fonts and install them
>> locally in c:\windows\fonts.
>
> The Liberation fonts are GPL licensed, Wine is LGPL.
Is there a meaningful difference in th
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Brian Vincent wrote:
> Along those lines, the hard drive space is cheap on this one. Seems
> like Wine packagers could just include the fonts and install them
> locally in c:\windows\fonts.
The Liberation fonts are GPL licensed, Wine is LGPL.
--
-Austin
2010/8/12 André Hentschel :
> Wow, can you please update http://wiki.winehq.org/FontLoadOrder with these
> great informations?
I'm not sure that's the _best_ page for it (this isn't about font
loading, but font substitution) but I'll see about writing it all up
properly this weekend. (And if I'm
Am 12.08.2010 06:11, schrieb Paul "TBBle" Hampson:
> Sorry, I failed at Gmail again. >_<
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Paul "TBBle" Hampson
> Date: 12 August 2010 13:52
> Subject: Re: Should we expect Liberation fonts to be
Sorry, I failed at Gmail again. >_<
-- Forwarded message --
From: Paul "TBBle" Hampson
Date: 12 August 2010 13:52
Subject: Re: Should we expect Liberation fonts to be installed?
To: Scott Ritchie
On 8 August 2010 13:02, Scott Ritchie wrote:
> On 08/03/2
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Scott Ritchie wrote:
>> This might work for Linux, but these fonts are not installed on any
>> MacOSX version that I'm aware of. This might break Wine useage for
>> Macs. It might also break it for Solaris as well.
>
> It should only
On 08/08/2010 06:56 AM, James McKenzie wrote:
> Scott Ritchie wrote:
>> I was looking through our fairly large collection of open font bugs and
>> realized that things might be a lot simpler if we took some opinionated
>> positions and just declared certain fonts to be depende
On 08/03/2010 01:57 PM, Scott Ritchie wrote:
> I was looking through our fairly large collection of open font bugs and
> realized that things might be a lot simpler if we took some opinionated
> positions and just declared certain fonts to be dependencies and
> expected all packager
spect system-level fontconfig aliases, so even
>> though Liberation Sans is installed on the system Photoshop won't try to
>> use it in place of Arial.
>
>
> This is an excellent idea, except that the Liberation fonts are really
> horrible. I've *tried* using the
iberation Sans is installed on the system Photoshop won't try to
> use it in place of Arial.
This is an excellent idea, except that the Liberation fonts are really
horrible. I've *tried* using them for general text use and they make
me want to gouge my eyes out.
Is there really no reaso
I was looking through our fairly large collection of open font bugs and
realized that things might be a lot simpler if we took some opinionated
positions and just declared certain fonts to be dependencies and
expected all packagers to provide them.
This is similar to bundling our own Tahoma
On Mon, 5 Jul 2010, Francois Gouget wrote:
[...]
> The winezeug issue tracker requires a _Google_ email address! Who in
> their right mind would want to create a new email account just to report
> bugs on free software? Could you move winezeug to a more open hosting
> provider?
My apologies. It
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010, Dan Kegel wrote:
> The right place for winetricks feature requests is the winezeug issue tracker.
> I've filed
> http://code.google.com/p/winezeug/issues/detail?id=134
> for the eu font update request.
The winezeug issue tracker requires a _Google_ email address! Who in
their
The right place for winetricks feature requests is the winezeug issue tracker.
I've filed
http://code.google.com/p/winezeug/issues/detail?id=134
for the eu font update request.
Hello,
Most fonts are missing some characters (S and T with a comma below, as
opposed to those with a cedilla; see [1] for a discussion) needed to
correctly represent some letters in the Romanian alphabet. Initially,
Windows XP did not include support for these characters, but it released an
--- On Fri, 5/2/10, Aric Stewart wrote:
> Scott Ritchie wrote:
> > My notes from Wineconf remind me that I need to create
> some manual links in the registry to whatever default CJK
> fonts are on the system. Can someone tell me what
> these are supposed to look like?
> >
Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
--- On Fri, 5/2/10, Aric Stewart wrote:
Scott Ritchie wrote:
My notes from Wineconf remind me that I need to create
some manual links in the registry to whatever default CJK
fonts are on the system. Can someone tell me what
these are supposed to look like?
Thanks
Scott Ritchie wrote:
My notes from Wineconf remind me that I need to create some manual links
in the registry to whatever default CJK fonts are on the system. Can
someone tell me what these are supposed to look like?
Thanks,
Scott Ritchie
Sure! (sorry for the delay)
The important keys
My notes from Wineconf remind me that I need to create some manual links
in the registry to whatever default CJK fonts are on the system. Can
someone tell me what these are supposed to look like?
Thanks,
Scott Ritchie
important for the newer "cleartype" fonts. I'm just using plain
Times New Roman.
Updated information: if I load up gedit (the gnome text editor) and
tell it to use Times New Roman 12, it *is* anti-aliased (depending on
my settings in gnome-control-center). However, the exact same fo
ems
to be important for the newer "cleartype" fonts. I'm just using plain
Times New Roman.
Updated information: if I load up gedit (the gnome text editor) and
tell it to use Times New Roman 12, it *is* anti-aliased (depending on
my settings in gnome-control-center). However, the e
;>>>
>>>>> http://www.wine-reviews.net/wine-reviews/tips-n-tricks/how-to-enable-font-anti-aliasing-in-wine.html
>>>>>
>>>>> ...I've enabled font anti-aliasing, and it does work for fonts above a
>>>>> particular point size. Howev
der wine. According to the
>>>> instructions here:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.wine-reviews.net/wine-reviews/tips-n-tricks/how-to-enable-font-anti-aliasing-in-wine.html
>>>>
>>>> ...I've enabled font anti-aliasing, and it does work for fonts above
-anti-aliasing-in-wine.html
...I've enabled font anti-aliasing, and it does work for fonts above a
particular point size. However, it seems to turn itself off below a
certain size. How can I configure the minimum font size at which to
allow anti-aliasing?
Try changing the dpi in winecfg.
-to-enable-font-anti-aliasing-in-wine.html
>>
>> ...I've enabled font anti-aliasing, and it does work for fonts above a
>> particular point size. However, it seems to turn itself off below a
>> certain size. How can I configure the minimum font size at which to
>
#x27;ve enabled font anti-aliasing, and it does work for fonts above a
> particular point size. However, it seems to turn itself off below a
> certain size. How can I configure the minimum font size at which to
> allow anti-aliasing?
Try changing the dpi in winecfg.
--
-Austin
Hi all,
I'm using Microsoft Office 2002 under wine. According to the instructions here:
http://www.wine-reviews.net/wine-reviews/tips-n-tricks/how-to-enable-font-anti-aliasing-in-wine.html
...I've enabled font anti-aliasing, and it does work for fonts above a
particular point size
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Paul Chitescu wrote:
[...]
> > +courier-1250-96-13.fnt
> [...]
> > +system-950-96-16.fnt
>
> Git knows shell glob patterns so why not just a line:
>
> *.fnt
Because that's less accurate. In particular, if we remove a font, the
corresponding .fnt file would still be ignored.
On Tuesday 25 August 2009 19:27:23 Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Kirill Smelkov
> ---
> fonts/.gitignore | 58
> ++ 1 files changed, 58
> insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fonts/.gitignore b/fon
for things like fontforge and icotool that
matter only to myself and to people working on fonts or icons; they are
irrelevant for end users. Asking users to enable maintainer mode is only
going to cause trouble for them.
--
Alexandre Julliard
julli...@winehq.org
> --- Comment #3 from Alexandre Julliard 2009-08-04
> 13:19:16 ---
> Please don't suggest that people use the --enable-maintainer-mode flag, that's
> not meant for normal users.
>
Then how can we be sure user have all requirements installed? --verbose
doesn't complain about everything which mak
Thanks, resent.
-aric
Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
"Aric Stewart" wrote:
load_child_font calls neither WineEngCreateFontInstance nor
GetEnumStructs.
It allocates the the child font structure above in the function sets
the few fields it thinks it needs and then goes on. I see no evidence
that
"Aric Stewart" wrote:
load_child_font calls neither WineEngCreateFontInstance nor GetEnumStructs.
It allocates the the child font structure above in the function sets the
few fields it thinks it needs and then goes on. I see no evidence that
it is being expected to have been set at any other
load_child_font calls neither WineEngCreateFontInstance nor GetEnumStructs.
It allocates the the child font structure above in the function sets the
few fields it thinks it needs and then goes on. I see no evidence that
it is being expected to have been set at any other point.
-aric
Dmitry T
"Aric Stewart" wrote:
@@ -5792,6 +5792,9 @@ static BOOL load_child_font(GdiFont *font, CHILD_FONT
*child)
child->font->scale_y = font->scale_y;
hfontlist = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, sizeof(*hfontlist));
hfontlist->hfont = CreateFontIndirectW(&font->font_desc.lf);
+/* ensur
On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 05:51:45PM -0700, Lei Zhang wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Paul TBBle Hampson
> wrote:
>> This patch fixes bug 18044.
>> Basically, the built-in FontLink functionality for subsituting
>> alternative fonts where a certain font is mi
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 06:34:46PM -0700, James McKenzie wrote:
> Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
>> This patch fixes bug 18044.
> Where is the patch? I could not find it.
Apologies, will resend the email with the patch this time...
--
---
Paul
Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> This patch fixes bug 18044.
>
> Basically, the built-in FontLink functionality for subsituting
> alternative fonts where a certain font is missing glyphs (used
> by default for Tahoma and Microsoft Sans Serif under Windows) doesn't
> work if t
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Paul TBBle Hampson
wrote:
> This patch fixes bug 18044.
>
> Basically, the built-in FontLink functionality for subsituting
> alternative fonts where a certain font is missing glyphs (used
> by default for Tahoma and Microsoft Sans Serif under W
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Lei Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is sort of related to bug 16325. I've noticed some applications
> use the "MS Shell Dlg" font to display CJK text and fails.
>
> In HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\FontSubstitutes,
> MS Shell Dlg i
see:
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12377
Am Dienstag, den 07.10.2008, 09:17 +0900 schrieb Dmitry Timoshkov:
> "Stefan Ziel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >This patch is obviously wrong
> >
> > may be, but t
"Stefan Ziel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >This patch is obviously wrong
>
> may be, but the handling of symbol fonts in wine also is ;)
>
>>TranslateCharsetInfo does handle SYMBOL_CHARSET, and code page
>>for symbol *is* defined.
>
> its t
>This patch is obviously wrong
may be, but the handling of symbol fonts in wine also is ;)
>TranslateCharsetInfo does handle SYMBOL_CHARSET, and code page
>for symbol *is* defined.
its the charset-bits in fontinfo structure where most symbol fonts
set bit 31 (reserved for OEM in
"Stefan Ziel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ignore characterset bit for symbol fonts
> -if(!TranslateCharsetInfo((DWORD*)(INT_PTR)lf.lfCharSet, &csi,
> TCI_SRCCHARSET)) {
> +if (lf.lfCharSet == SYMBOL_CHARSET){
> +/* codepage for
I wasn't sure if I should post this to the devel or user list.
A coin toss decided on this one.
First of all, I'd like to praise the author of
the patch at http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-patches/2008-July/057033.html
for "brilliance of simplicity". As I have all th
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Scott Ritchie wrote:
[...]
> On Ubuntu, the
> liberation fonts also not installed by default. Which brings up a
> related question: should the Wine package depend on them? It seems like
> having liberation fonts available would be helpful to Wine, and
> theref
Scott Ritchie wrote:
> After being partially inspired by Ubuntu brainstorm, it occurred to me
> that some of our fonts would be useful everywhere, but the current Wine
> package keeps its fonts to itself. Tahoma, for instance, could be
> useful if someone tries to open a Word docu
Hin-Tak Leung wrote:
> Scott Ritchie wrote:
>> After being partially inspired by Ubuntu brainstorm, it occurred to me
>> that some of our fonts would be useful everywhere, but the current Wine
>> package keeps its fonts to itself. Tahoma, for instance, could be
>> usef
After being partially inspired by Ubuntu brainstorm, it occurred to me
that some of our fonts would be useful everywhere, but the current Wine
package keeps its fonts to itself. Tahoma, for instance, could be
useful if someone tries to open a Word document in Open Office.
The solution varies
I'm not sure if that's a valid test to prove that point.
It's a bitmap font. The (latin version of the) font file is called
sserife.fon . Basically the FontFamily stuff relies on scalable
outlines, so gdiplus seems to simply ignore bitmap fonts.
It's also a hint that Wine&#
On Tue, 2008-07-08 at 13:20 +0100, Huw Davies wrote:
> ---
> dlls/gdiplus/tests/font.c |7 +++
> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
On my Windows system I can't find MSSansSerif, only Microsoft Sans
Serif. I'm not sure if that's a valid test to prove that point.
signature
"Igor Tarasov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> diff --git a/fonts/tahomabd.sfd b/fonts/tahomabd.sfd
> index b9fdfa0..e42678a 100644
> --- a/fonts/tahomabd.sfd
> +++ b/fonts/tahomabd.sfd
> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> -SplineFontDB: 1.0
> +SplineFontDB: 2.0
As I pointed
Huw Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> fonts/Makefile.in | 1 +
> fonts/symbol.sfd | 83
> +
Upgrading fontforge fixed the gdi32 errors, but now I'm getting errors
in usp10:
../../../tools/runtest -q -P
Huw Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ---
> fonts/Makefile.in |1 +
> fonts/symbol.sfd | 83
> +
> 2 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 fonts/symbol.sfd
It fails make test
Hans Leidekker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Changelog
> Do glyph translation for truetype fonts only.
This fails here:
../../../tools/runtest -q -P wine -M usp10.dll -T ../../.. -p usp10_test.exe.so
usp10.c && touch usp10.ok
usp10.c:217: Test failed: Translation to pl
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 06:54:05PM +0900, Aric Stewart wrote:
> I added a number of the black boxes to the 18 pixel strike (the range
> before 161) and fontforge seemed unhappy if i did not add something to
> the 16 pixel one. (maybe it was my misinterperting fontforge) but so i
> added simila
:
> Aric Stewart wrote:
>> ---
>> fonts/system.sfd | 1587
>> +-
>> 1 files changed, 1341 insertions(+), 246 deletions(-)
>
> You seem to have changed a couple of glyphs in the 16 pixel strike too.
> Was tha
Aric Stewart wrote:
> ---
> fonts/system.sfd | 1587
> +-
> 1 files changed, 1341 insertions(+), 246 deletions(-)
You seem to have changed a couple of glyphs in the 16 pixel strike too.
Was that on purpose (and if so shoul
Huw Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> --- a/dlls/gdi32/freetype.c
> +++ b/dlls/gdi32/freetype.c
> @@ -2109,6 +2109,7 @@ BOOL WineEngInit(void)
>
> /* load the system truetype fonts */
> data_dir = wine_get_data_dir();
> +if(!data_dir) data_dir =
On Saturday 06 October 2007 04:13:18 am Huw Davies wrote:
> Nice ;-/
>
> The new Tahoma doesn't contain any TrueType hinting instructions, so there
> are several sets of bitmaps that get used at small font sizes. It's
> possible winecfg is trying to use a font size for which we don't have a
> bitm
Chris Robinson wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 October 2007 04:15:17 am Huw Davies wrote:
>> ---
>> fonts/.gitignore | 1 +
>> fonts/Makefile.in |3 +-
>> fonts/tahoma.sfd |10850
>> + 3 files changed,
&g
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 04:15:17 am Huw Davies wrote:
> ---
> fonts/.gitignore |1 +
> fonts/Makefile.in | 3 +-
> fonts/tahoma.sfd |10850
> + 3 files changed,
> 10853 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> cre
the outline for Type1 OTF
fonts */
This is not what I suggested. Using a macro like FT_MAKE_TAG makes this
much more readable. WINEENG_SFNTTAG_CFF doesn't follow any macro naming
conventions in freetype.c, I'd suggest to use the same name as FreeType
has (TTAG_CFF) instead, perhaps
1 - 100 of 294 matches
Mail list logo
