Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 20:21:19 +0000
From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org
To: gecko@FreeBSD.org
Subject: [Bug 238482] x11-fonts/fontconfig: Firefox print pre-formatting is HORRIBLE ("bitmap font by default")
Message-ID: <bug-238482-21738-V8IYkMCyBn@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-238482-21738@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-238482-21738@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D238482 --- Comment #18 from Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg-freebsd@tristatelogic.com> --- Just a few final words and then I don't think I'll have anything else of va= lue to add regarding this problem/issue. First, my own system is behaving very well, now that I've found and applied= the magic incantation to make it work properly: cd /usr/local/etc/fonts/conf.d && ln -s ../conf.avail/70-no-bitmaps.conf My only point is that I have not opened and then reopened this PR just for myself alone. *My* system is working great now, and it will continue to do= so, I'm sure, until my next "upgrade". Rather, I believed, and still believe, = that a majority of FreeBSD users would be well served by not having to get down = and grovel around in obscure font files, just in order to do something really simple and obvious like printing from a browser. Others are, of course, entitled to hold different views and opinions on this point. The only other thing I feel is worth noting is that, going by the public record, the original author of PR 255744 decided, in the end, to withdraw h= is proposed changes, apparently NOT because he HAD actually seen ill effects b= ut only because, as he noted "it could be a big impact to many applications".= =20 This is quite obviously only informed speculation, as opposed to hard evide= nce. On the other hand, there is clear evidence that the enabling of bitmapped fonts, by default, causes multiple/numerous actual user problems. Given the clear opposition to any change from the existing defaults, I would like to merely close by suggesting that, at a minimum, it would be appropri= ate, I think, to include the command line shown above, which fixes the problem, along with some minimal comments explaining why and when it might be useful= , in the folliowing three places, so that no users for whom it may be of value w= ould be likely to miss it: *) Near the top of Section 5.5.1 of the Handbook. *) Somewhere in Section 6.2.1 (Firefox) of the Handbook. *) In the notices that are given at the end of the install process when doi= ng "pkg install firefox" from the command line. This would be a reasonable outcome, in my opinion. I don't believe that I have anything further of value to say on this issue.= I will just note, in response to the immediately prior comment, that no, I ha= ve not been using ports. I am only been using packages. (I would supply the additional data requested, but doing so would seem to just be a waste of everyone's time at this point, so I'll pass on that.) --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-238482-21738-V8IYkMCyBn>