Hi Richard, Thanks , you're right that it started in 6.1.2. The cause is the Content-Security-Policy the preset themes gained in 6.1.2: it sets default-src 'none' but no font-src, so the browser loads the CSS yet is blocked from downloading the Font Awesome webfont, which is why the icons come through blank. The gaurav theme is otherwise fine (Font Awesome 3.2.1, correct codepoints), so no icon or CSS edits are needed on your side.
The fix is a one-line addition: font-src 'self' to the theme's CSP; it's in apache/roller#183 and will ship in 6.1.6. One caveat: that CSP lives in the shared std_head.vm, not the weblog.vm you modified. If your blog uses the shared gaurav theme, redeploying picks it up automatically; if you imported gaurav as a custom theme, you'll want to re-import it or add font-src 'self' to your stored std_head.vm. Thanks for the clear report, Dave On Mon, Sep 07, 2026 10:34 PM, Richard via user <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello -- > > I've successfully upgraded an instance of Roller from 6.1.1 to 6.1.6 > RC1 and noticed that a few of the Font Awesome icons no longer render > with the Guarav theme -- although the CSS appears to be loading as > expected. > > Two of the missing icons I've noticed so far are referenced on the main > blog page: > > 1. Search field icon (top right corner of the main page). > > <button type="submit" id="search-btn" class="btn"><i class="icon- > search"></i></button> > > Corresponding to .icon-search:before{content:"\f002";} in > /<blogname>/resource/css/font-awesome.min.css (which is available from > View-Source) > > 2. "Posted on" icon just below the title on each blog post; for > example: > > <p><i class="icon-time"></i> Posted on Friday July 17, 2026 at 12:00AM > in <span class="category">Documents</span> </p> > > Corresponding to .icon-time:before{content:"\f017";} again in font- > awesome.min.css. > > I seem to recall having had this same issue when earlier attempting to > migrate to 6.1.2. I'm using a lightly-modified weblog.vm but the same > weblog.vm works correctly on 6.1.1. > > Could it be related to any changes introduced after 6.1.1? > > Thanks! > Richard >
