You are failing to provide a proper bug report that has details, instead, it we got a convoluted diff and an extremely vague description that makes no sense.
that makes it very hard to care. > On Sat, Jan 05, 2019 at 01:50:22AM +0200, Artturi Alm wrote: > > Hi, > > > > guessing i'm not the only one wondering about these sizes, as w/current > > snapshot the font does seem too big for me(on 2560x1440 display, for > > which radeondrm(4) has never gotten the size right(giving only 1920x1200)). > > > > display.part of wsconsctl output w/the diff: > > display.type=radeondrm > > display.width=1920 > > display.height=1200 > > display.depth=32 > > display.emulations=vt100 > > display.col_x_row=120x37 > > display.font_wxh=16x32 > > display.screentypes=std > > display.focus=4 > > display.screen_on=250 > > display.screen_off=0 > > display.vblank=off > > display.kbdact=on > > display.msact=on > > display.outact=on > > > > lazy(=ugly) not-so-minimal diff below. > > > > -Artturi > > > > fwiw., what i have w/o spleen: > display.type=radeondrm > display.width=1920 > display.height=1200 > display.depth=32 > display.emulations=vt100 > display.col_x_row=160x54 > display.font_wxh=12x22 > display.screentypes=std > > which is usable, and the wrong width/height doesn't matter so much. > i suppose i should have written to bugs@ at this point, with picture > showing the size of gaps around 'i', effectively making "libxxx" read > like "l i bxxx". > > -Artturi >
