After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 121543 - Scale attribute semantics
Scale attribute semantics
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: pango
Classification: Platform
Component: general
unspecified
Other All
: High major
: 1.2.5
Assigned To: pango-maint
pango-maint
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2003-09-05 14:09 UTC by Morten Welinder
Modified: 2004-12-22 21:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.3/2.4

Attachments
Possible fix (1.26 KB, patch)
2003-09-15 22:09 UTC, Owen Taylor 		none Details | Review

Description Morten Welinder 2003-09-05 14:09:40 UTC 
It seems to me that something is weird and wrong with scale attributes.
Have a look at pango_attr_iterator_get_font and assume we have two
attributes, size=12 and scale=10.

If the order is size+scale, then the result size is 120.
If the order is scale+size, then the result size is 12.

In other words, scale is _ignored_ in the second version!

When a layout has a font description, that description is put only the
attribute list with pango_attr_list_insert_before which means that the
order is not specified!

jody: put the font description into the attribute list before the scale
and you should be fine.
Comment 1 Owen Taylor 2003-09-15 22:09:56 UTC 
Created attachment 19964 [details] [review]
Possible fix
Comment 2 Owen Taylor 2003-09-15 22:10:13 UTC 
Could you test the attached?
Comment 3 Morten Welinder 2003-09-16 15:18:23 UTC 
Patch appears to work (and breaks gnumeric as a consequence).
Patch for that exists.
Comment 4 Owen Taylor 2003-09-16 15:44:29 UTC 
How does it break gnumeric? I'd expect that any code that
is doing something reasonable should still work.
Comment 5 Morten Welinder 2003-09-16 16:47:24 UTC 
Gnumeric 1.2 is scaling by hand to work around this issue.
Don't let it bother you too much -- by the time people will be using
the updated pango they will also be using a new gnumeric.
Comment 6 Owen Taylor 2003-11-17 21:06:49 UTC 
Fine to commit to pango-1-2 and HEAD
Comment 7 Morten Welinder 2003-11-18 14:02:07 UTC 
fixed in cvs.