[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