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 142296 - [PATCH] Add support for controlling terminal font smoothing on a per profile basis
[PATCH] Add support for controlling terminal font smoothing on a per profile ...
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 139332
Product: gnome-terminal
Classification: Core
Component: general
unspecified
Other FreeBSD
: Normal enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: GNOME Terminal Maintainers
GNOME Terminal Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2004-05-10 19:05 UTC by Joe Marcus Clarke
Modified: 2004-12-22 21:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
Add font smoothing behavior control to gnome-terminal (27.71 KB, patch)
2004-05-10 19:06 UTC, Joe Marcus Clarke
none Details | Review

Description Joe Marcus Clarke 2004-05-10 19:05:40 UTC
There have been quite a few FreeBSD users that wish they could easily control
the font smoothing (antialiasing) in gnome-terminal to improve performance.  Now
with vte-0.11.11, this is possible.  Attached are patches to make this happen. 
They are against HEAD, but will also apply out-of-the-box to the GNOME 2.6
branch.  It would be nice if they could be applied (in some form) to both branches.

Note: my HIG-fu sucks, so the GUI option is now under the Effects tab.  This was
the easiest for me to do, and proved the concept.  However, someone with more
HIG and glade fu should probably make this better (i.e. place it under the pango
font selector, and make the widget conditional on pango font support).

I'd be happy to do this if someone with more GUI skills could help guide me.
Comment 1 Joe Marcus Clarke 2004-05-10 19:06:15 UTC
Created attachment 27563 [details] [review]
Add font smoothing behavior control to gnome-terminal
Comment 2 Olav Vitters 2004-07-09 18:17:14 UTC
actually this bug is a dupe...

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 139322 ***
Comment 3 Olav Vitters 2004-07-09 18:18:14 UTC
oh oh.. bad typo... sorry for spam...
Comment 4 Olav Vitters 2004-07-09 18:18:43 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 139332 ***