https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=243558 Summary: Arial font major rendering regression on SUSE 10.2 (from 10.1) Product: openSUSE 10.2 Version: Final Platform: i686 OS/Version: SuSE Other Status: NEW Severity: Major Priority: P5 - None Component: X11 Applications AssignedTo: bnc-team-screening@forge.provo.novell.com ReportedBy: ashaduri@yandex.ru QAContact: sndirsch@novell.com I have two installations of SUSE - 10.1 and 10.2. I've been able to achieve extremely high quality rendering for Arial font using the ~/.fonts.conf file below (AA enabled, full hinting, autohint enabled) on SUSE 10.1 (that is, freetype2-2.1.10-16). However, in SUSE 10.2 (with bundled freetype2-2.2.1.20061027-11) its impossible to achieve something even close to that. I've fiddled with many settings (hinting style, autohint), but the rendering quality is just unacceptable for Arial (I'll attach the screenshots). I also tried freetype2-2.3.0-5.1 (from http://software.opensuse.org/download/GNOME:/UNSTABLE/openSUSE_10.2/src/free...) - it was a little better than 2.2.1, but still bad (I didn't take any screenshots of it). Then, I downloaded freetype2 2.3.1 tarballs from the freetype site, and adapted the rpm spec file from freetype2-2.3.0-5.1 (I left all the patches as they were). The result is that the rendering is much better than 2.2.1 and 2.3.0, but still worse than 2.1.10. Of course, I understand that "better" and "worse" are somewhat subjective, but all the versions after 2.1.10 have the rendering artifacts which may be considered as bugs, so it's not only pretty vs less pretty, but there are actual issues there. The composite screenshots of 3 versions (2.1.10, 2.2.1, 2.3.1) (10pt and 9pt sizes) will be attached. 2.2.1 is clearly worse than 2.1.10; 2.3.1 looks almost the same as 2.1.10 at 10pt, but on closer inspection it has some spacing issues - note the third line with "1234...". It's especially apparent at 9pt. Also, the number '9' looks real ugly on 2.3.1 (9pt). The text editor on the screenshots is kwrite. So, to sum up, the freetype versions are: freetype2-2.1.10-16 (bundled with SUSE 10.1 I think) on SUSE 10.1 - very good. freetype2-2.2.1.20061027-11 - (bundled with SUSE 10.2) on SUSE 10.2- horrible. freetype2-2.3.0-5.1 (from GNOME unstable repository on opensuse.org) on SUSE 10.2 - little better than 2.2.1. freetype2-2.3.1-5.1 (my package) on SUSE 10.2 - much better, but still worse than 2.1.10. Has some rendering glitches. I tried to install 2.1.10 on SUSE 10.2, but there's some dynamic linker error at runtime in some Xft library, so I gave up. As I understand it, all these versions have the bytecode interpreter enabled during compile time. I would post this to freetype bugzilla, but there seems to be no such thing. Also, I know that SUSE has somewhat patched versions of freetype2, so I doubt they would give support for that. I'm using a CRT display (Samsung 753DFX), so no subpixel hinting is enabled. Contents of the ~/.fonts.conf file (both distributions): <?xml version="1.0"?> <!DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM "fonts.dtd"> <fontconfig> <match target="font" > <edit mode="assign" name="rgba" > <const>none</const> </edit> </match> <match target="font" > <edit mode="assign" name="hinting" > <bool>true</bool> </edit> </match> <match target="font" > <edit mode="assign" name="hintstyle" > <const>hintfull</const> </edit> </match> <match target="font" > <edit mode="assign" name="autohint" > <bool>true</bool> </edit> </match> <match target="font" > <edit mode="assign" name="antialias" > <bool>true</bool> </edit> </match> <match target="font" > <edit mode="assign" name="dpi" > <double>96</double> </edit> </match> </fontconfig> -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.novell.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.