thanks for this.. things certainly look different... i'm not sure whether it is better yet.
it really would be nice if someone could post relevant
/etc/fonts/local.conf
~/.fonts.conf
that would help immensely
[HOWTO]New freetype subpixel font rendering for lcd monitors
Message
Firefox Theme?
I've got the fonts done, now what theme are you using for firefox? 
Can't help you with that, because none of these files are present in my system.optics wrote:thanks for this.. things certainly look different... i'm not sure whether it is better yet.
it really would be nice if someone could post relevant
/etc/fonts/local.conf
~/.fonts.conf
that would help immensely
It's [gperfection].PraetorX wrote:I've got the fonts done, now what theme are you using for firefox?
edit: url update
Last edited by boniek on Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Attention!
Some big changes to the freetype ebuild. There is no newspr use flag anymore and instead there are 3 new available:
> filter_default - gives same effect as old newspr,
> filter_light - bit different, less blurry but slightly more color artifacts,
> filter_legacy - it's filter used by libXft and Cairo, high contrast but sometimes a lot of color fringing
Attention!
As always choose what you like most
Some big changes to the freetype ebuild. There is no newspr use flag anymore and instead there are 3 new available:
> filter_default - gives same effect as old newspr,
> filter_light - bit different, less blurry but slightly more color artifacts,
> filter_legacy - it's filter used by libXft and Cairo, high contrast but sometimes a lot of color fringing
Attention!
As always choose what you like most
Last edited by boniek on Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
optics wrote:how about /etc/fonts/fonts.conf ?
Code: Select all
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM "fonts.dtd">
<!-- /etc/fonts/fonts.conf file to configure system font access -->
<fontconfig>
<!--
DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE.
IT WILL BE REPLACED WHEN FONTCONFIG IS UPDATED.
LOCAL CHANGES BELONG IN 'local.conf'.
The intent of this standard configuration file is to be adequate for
most environments. If you have a reasonably normal environment and
have found problems with this configuration, they are probably
things that others will also want fixed. Please submit any
problems to the fontconfig bugzilla system located at fontconfig.org
Note that the normal 'make install' procedure for fontconfig is to
replace any existing fonts.conf file with the new version. Place
any local customizations in local.conf which this file references.
Keith Packard
-->
<!-- Font directory list -->
<dir>/usr/share/fonts</dir>
<dir>/usr/local/share/fonts</dir> <dir>/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts</dir>
<dir>~/.fonts</dir>
<!-- Font cache directory list -->
<cachedir>/var/cache/fontconfig</cachedir>
<cachedir>~/.fontconfig</cachedir>
<!--
Accept deprecated 'mono' alias, replacing it with 'monospace'
-->
<match target="pattern">
<test qual="any" name="family">
<string>mono</string>
</test>
<edit name="family" mode="assign">
<string>monospace</string>
</edit>
</match>
<!--
Accept alternate 'sans serif' spelling, replacing it with 'sans-serif'
-->
<match target="pattern">
<test qual="any" name="family">
<string>sans serif</string>
</test>
<edit name="family" mode="assign">
<string>sans-serif</string>
</edit>
</match>
<!--
Accept deprecated 'sans' alias, replacing it with 'sans-serif'
-->
<match target="pattern">
<test qual="any" name="family">
<string>sans</string>
</test>
<edit name="family" mode="assign">
<string>sans-serif</string>
</edit>
</match>
<!--
Load local system customization file
-->
<include ignore_missing="yes">conf.d</include>
<config>
<!--
These are the default Unicode chars that are expected to be blank
in fonts. All other blank chars are assumed to be broken and
won't appear in the resulting charsets
-->
<blank>
<int>0x0020</int> <!-- SPACE -->
<int>0x00A0</int> <!-- NO-BREAK SPACE -->
<int>0x00AD</int> <!-- SOFT HYPHEN -->
<int>0x034F</int> <!-- COMBINING GRAPHEME JOINER -->
<int>0x0600</int> <!-- ARABIC NUMBER SIGN -->
<int>0x0601</int> <!-- ARABIC SIGN SANAH -->
<int>0x0602</int> <!-- ARABIC FOOTNOTE MARKER -->
<int>0x0603</int> <!-- ARABIC SIGN SAFHA -->
<int>0x06DD</int> <!-- ARABIC END OF AYAH -->
<int>0x070F</int> <!-- SYRIAC ABBREVIATION MARK -->
<int>0x115F</int> <!-- HANGUL CHOSEONG FILLER -->
<int>0x1160</int> <!-- HANGUL JUNGSEONG FILLER -->
<int>0x1680</int> <!-- OGHAM SPACE MARK -->
<int>0x17B4</int> <!-- KHMER VOWEL INHERENT AQ -->
<int>0x17B5</int> <!-- KHMER VOWEL INHERENT AA -->
<int>0x180E</int> <!-- MONGOLIAN VOWEL SEPARATOR -->
<int>0x2000</int> <!-- EN QUAD -->
<int>0x2001</int> <!-- EM QUAD -->
<int>0x2002</int> <!-- EN SPACE -->
<int>0x2003</int> <!-- EM SPACE -->
<int>0x2004</int> <!-- THREE-PER-EM SPACE -->
<int>0x2005</int> <!-- FOUR-PER-EM SPACE -->
<int>0x2006</int> <!-- SIX-PER-EM SPACE -->
<int>0x2007</int> <!-- FIGURE SPACE -->
<int>0x2008</int> <!-- PUNCTUATION SPACE -->
<int>0x2009</int> <!-- THIN SPACE -->
<int>0x200A</int> <!-- HAIR SPACE -->
<int>0x200B</int> <!-- ZERO WIDTH SPACE -->
<int>0x200C</int> <!-- ZERO WIDTH NON-JOINER -->
<int>0x200D</int> <!-- ZERO WIDTH JOINER -->
<int>0x200E</int> <!-- LEFT-TO-RIGHT MARK -->
<int>0x200F</int> <!-- RIGHT-TO-LEFT MARK -->
<int>0x2028</int> <!-- LINE SEPARATOR -->
<int>0x2029</int> <!-- PARAGRAPH SEPARATOR -->
<int>0x202A</int> <!-- LEFT-TO-RIGHT EMBEDDING -->
<int>0x202B</int> <!-- RIGHT-TO-LEFT EMBEDDING -->
<int>0x202C</int> <!-- POP DIRECTIONAL FORMATTING -->
<int>0x202D</int> <!-- LEFT-TO-RIGHT OVERRIDE -->
<int>0x202E</int> <!-- RIGHT-TO-LEFT OVERRIDE -->
<int>0x202F</int> <!-- NARROW NO-BREAK SPACE -->
<int>0x205F</int> <!-- MEDIUM MATHEMATICAL SPACE -->
<int>0x2060</int> <!-- WORD JOINER -->
<int>0x2061</int> <!-- FUNCTION APPLICATION -->
<int>0x2062</int> <!-- INVISIBLE TIMES -->
<int>0x2063</int> <!-- INVISIBLE SEPARATOR -->
<int>0x206A</int> <!-- INHIBIT SYMMETRIC SWAPPING -->
<int>0x206B</int> <!-- ACTIVATE SYMMETRIC SWAPPING -->
<int>0x206C</int> <!-- INHIBIT ARABIC FORM SHAPING -->
<int>0x206D</int> <!-- ACTIVATE ARABIC FORM SHAPING -->
<int>0x206E</int> <!-- NATIONAL DIGIT SHAPES -->
<int>0x206F</int> <!-- NOMINAL DIGIT SHAPES -->
<int>0x3000</int> <!-- IDEOGRAPHIC SPACE -->
<int>0x3164</int> <!-- HANGUL FILLER -->
<int>0xFEFF</int> <!-- ZERO WIDTH NO-BREAK SPACE -->
<int>0xFFA0</int> <!-- HALFWIDTH HANGUL FILLER -->
<int>0xFFF9</int> <!-- INTERLINEAR ANNOTATION ANCHOR -->
<int>0xFFFA</int> <!-- INTERLINEAR ANNOTATION SEPARATOR -->
<int>0xFFFB</int> <!-- INTERLINEAR ANNOTATION TERMINATOR -->
</blank>
<!--
Rescan configuration every 30 seconds when FcFontSetList is called
-->
<rescan>
<int>30</int>
</rescan>
</config>
</fontconfig>
compiled latest version with filter_default, and they changed from the newspr I had before. Got considerably worse.boniek wrote:Attention!
Some big changes to the freetype ebuild. There is no newspr use flag anymore and instead there are 3 new available:
> filter_default - gives same effect as old newspr,
> filter_light - bit different, less blurry but slightly more color artifacts,
> filter_legacy - it's filter used by libXft and Cairo, high contrast but sometimes a lot of color fringing
Attention!
As always choose what you like most
Tried updating fc-cache/removing .fontconfig, and we'll see if it gets better. But I could have sworn my fonts were nicer before
That's why there are older ebuilds in overlay as well. If you have doubts take screenshot with newer version, compile older version and take screenshot as well and compareneuron wrote: compiled latest version with filter_default, and they changed from the newspr I had before. Got considerably worse.
Tried updating fc-cache/removing .fontconfig, and we'll see if it gets better. But I could have sworn my fonts were nicer before
There is no difference here between newspr and filter_default (and there shouldn't be because the only difference between these is the name )I had some problems when I emerged the new version, but I cleared my .fontconfig directory, reset the settings (to the exact same I had before), and logged out and in again, and it seems good again nowboniek wrote:That's why there are older ebuilds in overlay as well. If you have doubts take screenshot with newer version, compile older version and take screenshot as well and compareneuron wrote: compiled latest version with filter_default, and they changed from the newspr I had before. Got considerably worse.
Tried updating fc-cache/removing .fontconfig, and we'll see if it gets better. But I could have sworn my fonts were nicer before
- ahubu
- Guru
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 2:23 am
- Location: Groningen, The Netherlands
- Contact:
I'm both having problems with the boldy bold fonts, as well as with the "after" shot not looking as good as on your pictures. I did follow the guide, and I did try all what has been suggested.
I'm using the filter_default, and I'm that particular screenshot I cannot see color-artifacts, yet with me they are often visible, combined with a "over-sharpened" look (like I took a screenshot, loaded it in The Gimp and used the sharpen filter). It looks like this only occurs with the firefox(-bin) browser, both the menus and the content. If you look at the gnome-panel, that looks fine.
Also very small fonts, as you can see on the screenshot, are pretty blurry. (the openbox menu has blurry fonts, certainly blurrier than before the switch). Does this have anything to do with small fonts shouldn't be anti-aliased?
I did try this before without the updated ebuilds, and it was even worse than now, so you did help me a bunch already.
edit: the firefox thing is already solved. Turns out to be the fault of running firefox-bin, that one uses different rendering settings, apparently. Now using Bon Echo (firefox home-compiled) and the fonts are great! However, I'd like to know how to get the same result with the firefox-bin. I tried to play with the font settings in about:config, but that doesn't make it as good as this).
edit2: incredible, I must be tired. After restarting openbox, the fonts are fine. And all small fonts in all applications are rendered perfectly. The only thing that still stands, is the boldness, as someone remarked earlier. I feel it is indeed excessive, and it makes the characters vague.
I'm using the filter_default, and I'm that particular screenshot I cannot see color-artifacts, yet with me they are often visible, combined with a "over-sharpened" look (like I took a screenshot, loaded it in The Gimp and used the sharpen filter). It looks like this only occurs with the firefox(-bin) browser, both the menus and the content. If you look at the gnome-panel, that looks fine.
Also very small fonts, as you can see on the screenshot, are pretty blurry. (the openbox menu has blurry fonts, certainly blurrier than before the switch). Does this have anything to do with small fonts shouldn't be anti-aliased?
I did try this before without the updated ebuilds, and it was even worse than now, so you did help me a bunch already.
edit: the firefox thing is already solved. Turns out to be the fault of running firefox-bin, that one uses different rendering settings, apparently. Now using Bon Echo (firefox home-compiled) and the fonts are great! However, I'd like to know how to get the same result with the firefox-bin. I tried to play with the font settings in about:config, but that doesn't make it as good as this).
edit2: incredible, I must be tired. After restarting openbox, the fonts are fine. And all small fonts in all applications are rendered perfectly. The only thing that still stands, is the boldness, as someone remarked earlier. I feel it is indeed excessive, and it makes the characters vague.
Anne // Light travels faster than sound. That's why people appear bright until
you hear them speak. -Unknown
you hear them speak. -Unknown
for those having ugly fonts with firefox-bin, try firefox, helped a LOT for me (and I had tweaked firefox-bin for ages too, since I'm on amd64).
Also, getting this error every time I start.. well, pretty much everything:
It's not really a problem though, more of an annoyance (it's on console, so I rarly notice).
Also, getting this error every time I start.. well, pretty much everything:
Code: Select all
Fontconfig warning: line 32: unknown element "cachedir"
Fontconfig warning: line 33: unknown element "cachedir"
Fontconfig warning: "/etc/fonts/conf.d/80-delicious.conf", line 18: invalid match target "scan"
Sorry for late reply
Yes bold fonts do look strange for me too. It would be helpful if you could post your comments about it in savannah bug here:
http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/index.php?18374
About fontconfig problem - I have no idea :p I don't have such warnings here (media-libs/fontconfig-2.4.2 -doc -xml)
cat /etc/fonts/conf.d/80-delicious.conf
You may try disabling pango for firefox-bin like this: MOZ_PANGO_DISABLE=1 firefox-bin (may or may not help ). I don't really know if firefox-bin is using static versions of libXft, cairo or freetype. If so that is the problem and you should stick to source ebuild.
Yes bold fonts do look strange for me too. It would be helpful if you could post your comments about it in savannah bug here:
http://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/index.php?18374
About fontconfig problem - I have no idea :p I don't have such warnings here (media-libs/fontconfig-2.4.2 -doc -xml)
cat /etc/fonts/conf.d/80-delicious.conf
Code: Select all
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM "fonts.dtd">
<!-- /etc/fonts/conf.d/60-delicious.conf -->
<fontconfig>
<!-- Fix-ups for Delicious family -->
<!-- Delicious 'heavy' variant says its Medium weight -->
<match target="scan">
<test name="family">
<string>Delicious</string>
</test>
<test name="style">
<string>Heavy</string>
</test>
<edit name="weight">
<const>heavy</const>
</edit>
</match>
</fontconfig>
compiling with -xml removed the error from most programs (it's compiled with xml in my emul-* libraries though, so I'm still getting it on 32bit apps :p ).
And I'll try the pango thing, that didn't even occur to me, most of the fonts are identical though, just some fonts on 32bit show up really horrible for some reason.
And I'll try the pango thing, that didn't even occur to me
, most of the fonts are identical though, just some fonts on 32bit show up really horrible for some reason.
If this is a little off topic - I apologize.
I'm using layman for the first time and only for xeffects.
After syncing recently I've noticed this:
i.e. libwnck is stable in portage and ~ masked in overlay for the same version.
Is a general rule for all overlay packages to be ~ masked? Or they are different despite the same version number?
Is it possible to have the same ~arch keywords in layman overlay packages as in portage?
Right now, unless I remove libwnck from local overlay directory I get "blocking" message for libwnck.
I'm using layman for the first time and only for xeffects.
After syncing recently I've noticed this:
Code: Select all
# dep -k libwnck
x11-libs/libwnck:
| s
| p p
| p a x
| c r 8
| - c 6
| a a p m s - -
| l m h i m m p a s p f f
| p d a p a 6 i p c c 3 a b x b
| h 6 r p 6 8 p p 6 o 9 s r s 8 s
| a 4 m a 4 k s c 4 s 0 h c d 6 d
-------+-----------------------------v--
2.14.2 | + + + + + + + + + +
2.14.2 | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /usr/portage/local/layman/xeffects
2.16.1 | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2.16.1 | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /usr/portage/local/layman/xeffects
2.16.2 > ~ + ~ ~ ~ + + ~ + +
2.16.2 | ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ /usr/portage/local/layman/xeffectsIs a general rule for all overlay packages to be ~ masked? Or they are different despite the same version number?
Is it possible to have the same ~arch keywords in layman overlay packages as in portage?
Right now, unless I remove libwnck from local overlay directory I get "blocking" message for libwnck.
p3k4
Seize the time, Meribor. Live now; make now always the most precious time. Now will never come again...
Jean-Luc Picard, Star Trek TNG - The Inner Light
Seize the time, Meribor. Live now; make now always the most precious time. Now will never come again...
Jean-Luc Picard, Star Trek TNG - The Inner Light
- kfiaciarka
- Veteran
- Posts: 1498
- Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 10:35 pm
- Location: Dobre Miasto, Poland
- Contact:
- Vlad.Sharp
- Guru
- Posts: 337
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:30 am
- Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
OpenOffice
Thanks for the howto, it's very good 
The only problem I've had (for a month now, with different openoffices) is openoffice looks ugly...
http://www.vladsharp.com/images/oo2.1/fonts_2.png
in contrast to Firefox
http://www.vladsharp.com/images/oo2.1/fonts_3.png
I've even filed a bug about it recently: http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=72945
Specifically, OpenOffice crashes X etc. when I try to select fonts. Anyone else having this issue?
The only problem I've had (for a month now, with different openoffices) is openoffice looks ugly...
http://www.vladsharp.com/images/oo2.1/fonts_2.png
in contrast to Firefox
http://www.vladsharp.com/images/oo2.1/fonts_3.png
I've even filed a bug about it recently: http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=72945
Specifically, OpenOffice crashes X etc. when I try to select fonts. Anyone else having this issue?
- Vlad.Sharp
- Guru
- Posts: 337
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:30 am
- Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
I compiled OpenOffice 2.1 from scratch (too a good few hours) and the fonts seem fine now. I think it's because OO-2.1 still depends on freetype internals that it bundles with itself.peka wrote:Yeap, OO menu titles look bad.
But I can't get it to crash playing with fonts as you say in your bug report.
- Vlad.Sharp
- Guru
- Posts: 337
- Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:30 am
- Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
I fixed the problem by compiling openoffice from source - it seems that it links to the proper libraries now and so the fonts look fine. I'll post a screenie soon.boniek wrote: OO fonts looks fugly here as well, can't do much about it.
Edit: Here's how fonts look now - and strange fonts that could well have caused the problems: http://www.openoffice.org/nonav/issues/ ... _fonts.png
ahahhahahaVlad.Sharp wrote:I fixed the problem by compiling openoffice from source
I always edit {$S}include/freetype/config/ftoption.h
#define TT_CONFIG_OPTION_UNPATENTED_HINTING >
#undef TT_CONFIG_OPTION_UNPATENTED_HINTING
so it doesn't look like shit.
I also notice #define FT_OPTIMIZE_MEMORY is enabled in 2.2.1. I'm not going to even try it if it breaks all that stuff. But someday. . .
