[Bug 106] freetype-2.1.3

Bruce Dubbs bdubbs at swbell.net
Tue Jan 7 14:43:30 PST 2003


Jeroen Coumans wrote:

>On Monday 06 January 2003 17:54, Dagmar d'Surreal wrote:
>  
>
>>On Sun, 2003-01-05 at 19:57, Jeroen Coumans wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>The documentation now explicitly recommends _not_ to enable the
>>>bytecode interpreter, since freetype's own rendering now matches
>>>it's quality.
>>>      
>>>
>>That's all well and good, but some fonts have different glyphs that
>>will be used when this is turned on.  Microsoft's Web Fonts in
>>particular seem to each have a set of hinted bitmap equivalents for
>>most of the font sizes below ~16 that display with a slightly
>>different, less blurred look.  (The fonts are still quite
>>anti-aliased, they're just anti-aliased as if someone did them up
>>carefully with MicroAngelo)
>>    
>>
>
>I disagree; on my LCD the fonts are clearer and more crisp without the 
>bytecode interpreter. This is IMHO of course; but nevertheless I think 
>the instructions should leave the choice to the reader, and defaulting 
>to off. Btw, instead of sedding the #defines they can also appended 
>like this:
>echo #define BYTE_CODE_BLAH_BLAH >> include/freetype/ftoption.h
>
>This makes the instructions more clear
>

It makes the BLFS instructions mor clear, but makes the ftoption.h file 
much less clear.  There are many comments describing the options in the 
file and this moves definitions to a different place.  I did consider an 
append, but decided against it for that reason.

As far as the BYTECODE option goes, there seems to be a difference of 
opinion.  I think I'll leave it in for now.  I may consider putting in a 
note that some people will find leaving it out to give better rendering. 
 Any suggestions for wording?

  -- Bruce

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list