On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 06:33:08PM +0000, John Lowell wrote:> On 02/17/05 22:59:53, Keith Packard wrote: > > >You can compare the set of available fonts on each machine by running > >the > >fc-list program; that will list the fonts that fontconfig knows > >about. > > If > >those lists are the same, you either have an issue with your > >configuration > >or just that the two difference versions of fontconfig are generating > >different results. > > > >-keith > > Keith, > > fc-list shows identical font availability so the issue must be one of > configuration. This would concern differences in /etc/fonts/font.conf > or /etc/fonts/local.conf, most likely the former, would it not?Also, even though the same version is reported on the 3 distros, they may be applying local patches to the code which code change behavior. I''d look for differences in config first though, and yeah, you should check both files. -Yosh
On 02/17/05 21:56:34, Ambrose Li wrote:> Do the two systems run the same version of fontconfig? > > I see this problem very often, usually with Type 1 fonts (and > especially commercial ones), but then I''m running a Really > Ancient version of fontconfig.Hi Ambrose, Yes, Gentoo, Debian and Arch Linux each have 2.2.3 installed. In a perverse sense, I''m at least happy to hear that it''s not only me that experiences this difference. But if I keep this up I''m going to get a bad case of "distro-lash", eh? :-) Regards, jlowell
Around 21 o''clock on Feb 17, John Lowell wrote:> I''m trying to understand why it is that using Gentoo and > gtk-theme-switch (which relies on fontconfig to change fonts and themes > in various applications) I''m offered a different font selection than > that offered in Debian or Arch using the very same program.You can compare the set of available fonts on each machine by running the fc-list program; that will list the fonts that fontconfig knows about. If those lists are the same, you either have an issue with your configuration or just that the two difference versions of fontconfig are generating different results. -keith -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/fontconfig/attachments/20050217/4d40fc3b/attachment.pgp
Around 18 o''clock on Feb 18, John Lowell wrote:> fc-list shows identical font availability so the issue must be one of > configuration. This would concern differences in /etc/fonts/font.conf > or /etc/fonts/local.conf, most likely the former, would it not?Configuration or library differences. It''s hard to tell which in this case; checking the configuration files might show some of the reasons. -keith -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/fontconfig/attachments/20050218/df65b0ba/attachment.pgp
John Lowell wrote:> I must confess, after having written here earlier and not having > gotten a reply and having done much additional research since without > making much headway, I remain baffled respecting different font > behavior using fontconfig in two distros. Let me restate the problem, > perhaps someone can provide light at this point. > > I''m trying to understand why it is that using Gentoo and > gtk-theme-switch (which relies on fontconfig to change fonts and > themes in various applications) I''m offered a different font selection > than that offered in Debian or Arch using the very same program. > Configuring /etc/fonts/local.conf to identify a special font directory > in each case (/usr/local/share/fonts in Debian and /usr/share/fonts in > Gentoo and Arch) and copying identical font directories from > /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts into these directories, gtk-theme-switch > offers entirely different font interpretations in each case. For > example, lucida regular is shown in gtk-theme-switch as an option in > Debian but when it''s selected, lucida semi-bold is the one actually > offered. With Gentoo, the same selection yields lucida regular, medium > weight. Why would it be that there is a difference here? One would > think that lucida regular means lucida regular. I''d really appreciate > some help with this question. I mean if I can''t get it here, where can > help be obtained? > > John Lowellcould this have anything to do with defoma?
On 02/17/05 21:37:12, cga wrote:> could this have anything to do with defoma?Thanks for the reply, cga. You know, I''d believe that if Debian were the only constant producing the difference with Gentoo, but Arch does as well. I can transfer the entire lucida portion of the 100dpi font directory in Gentoo over to Arch, update the cache, copy these fonts over to /usr/share/fonts and amend /etc/fonts/fonts.conf in Arch to show <dir>/usr/share/fonts</dir> at the right place and still experience this difference. It''s maddening. My only thought has been to identify some difference in the /etc/fonts/font.conf in these distros but there isn''t even a reference to lucida in any of them. This difference has to be accounted for somehow, but how? jlowell
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 09:37:12PM -0500, cga wrote:> > weight. Why would it be that there is a difference here? One > > would think that lucida regular means lucida regular. I''d > > really appreciate some help with this question. I mean if I > > can''t get it here, where can help be obtained? > > > > John Lowell > > could this have anything to do with defoma?Do the two systems run the same version of fontconfig? I see this problem very often, usually with Type 1 fonts (and especially commercial ones), but then I''m running a Really Ancient version of fontconfig.
On 02/17/05 22:59:53, Keith Packard wrote:> You can compare the set of available fonts on each machine by running > the > fc-list program; that will list the fonts that fontconfig knows > about. > If > those lists are the same, you either have an issue with your > configuration > or just that the two difference versions of fontconfig are generating > different results. > > -keithKeith, fc-list shows identical font availability so the issue must be one of configuration. This would concern differences in /etc/fonts/font.conf or /etc/fonts/local.conf, most likely the former, would it not? jlowell
On 02/18/05 13:58:28, Manish Singh wrote:> Also, even though the same version is reported on the 3 distros, they > may be applying local patches to the code which code change behavior. > > I''d look for differences in config first though, and yeah, you should > check both files. > > -YoshThanks, Yosh. You know, having literally transported the configuration files distro to distro in perhaps a further naive attempt to elliminate the differences, I was still unable to do so. I think the code patching - and certainly there has been code patching - has to explain the difference. In the final analysis, I''m just not in a position to do anything about that. Raw determination and persistence doesn''t always fix things, it would seem. jlowell
I must confess, after having written here earlier and not having gotten a reply and having done much additional research since without making much headway, I remain baffled respecting different font behavior using fontconfig in two distros. Let me restate the problem, perhaps someone can provide light at this point. I''m trying to understand why it is that using Gentoo and gtk-theme-switch (which relies on fontconfig to change fonts and themes in various applications) I''m offered a different font selection than that offered in Debian or Arch using the very same program. Configuring /etc/fonts/local.conf to identify a special font directory in each case (/usr/local/share/fonts in Debian and /usr/share/fonts in Gentoo and Arch) and copying identical font directories from /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts into these directories, gtk-theme-switch offers entirely different font interpretations in each case. For example, lucida regular is shown in gtk-theme-switch as an option in Debian but when it''s selected, lucida semi-bold is the one actually offered. With Gentoo, the same selection yields lucida regular, medium weight. Why would it be that there is a difference here? One would think that lucida regular means lucida regular. I''d really appreciate some help with this question. I mean if I can''t get it here, where can help be obtained? John Lowell