[Pkg-fonts-devel] Looking for a sponsor for my fonts-hack package

Paride Legovini pl at ninthfloor.org
Fri Sep 4 11:59:04 UTC 2015

On 2015-09-04 13:33, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Paride Legovini (2015-09-04 10:31:10)
>> On 2015-09-04 00:49, Norbert Preining wrote:
>>>> Check the two attached files, it's apparent that otf version gives a 
>>>> result that is by far worse. Check especially the bold 'm' letter, 
>>>> the dollar symbol and the dot inside of the '0' character.
>>> Hi everyone. Just one code point: I have installed the OTF fonts 
>>> (outside packaging) and have them running in roxterm, and I don't see 
>>> the artefacts that are indeed clearly visible in the screenshots.

With roxterm I'm getting the same output I get with sakura (as expected).

> Attached are ghostscript renderings of the two main fonts

> I cannot see any difference

> I believe the hinters are relevant for screen rendering only.

> I still recommend to package both Truetype and Opentype

So my understanding so far goes like this:

1. otf anf ttf describe the same typefaces;
2. what changes is the result after the hinting process for screen
rendering. For some reason (different information in the files?
different treatment by the hinting library?) the result vary.
3. If I disable hinting, the rendering is indeed identical. (With one
difference: with the otf version the lines are a bit more spaced.)
4. As hinting settings, display resolution, personal preference may
vary, the best option is to package all the available versions.

Where should the web fonts be installed?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-fonts-devel/attachments/20150904/cd68d38c/attachment.sig>

More information about the Pkg-fonts-devel mailing list