Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 13:31:28 +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-zKUbKZEB7D@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 #16 from Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Ronald F. Guilmette from comment #15) 1) That print pre-formatting with bitmap fonts is ugly is not being questio= ned 2) Others have seen ill-effects, just like you, but for the opposite case. = This is why bug 225744 was mentioned several times. I would go through it thoroughly, seeking to understand the complete context of the 'opposite sid= e of the argument' that you currently hold, which is to say, what is the nature = and extent of issues when fontconfig defaults to using no-bitmap.conf.=20 3) Doing no-bitmap.conf by default has already been attempted once, and it = was reverted. Asking for the same thing again, would also mean taking on the bu= rden to resolve 'at least' those issues raised the last time it was committed, if that were possible. Each side arguing why they're case is more important, or why the opposite case is less important is not a fruitful discussion. 4) We must find a solution, or solutions, if they exist, that are objective= ly better than the either/or case. This will be a function of collective self-motivated effort and research. --=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-zKUbKZEB7D>