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 147372 - Incorrect font style used for some font styles shown in the font selection dialog
Incorrect font style used for some font styles shown in the font selection di...
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 95043
Product: gtk+
Classification: Platform
Component: .General
2.4.x
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: gtk-bugs
gtk-bugs
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2004-07-11 23:19 UTC by Vesa Halttunen
Modified: 2004-12-22 21:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.5/2.6



Description Vesa Halttunen 2004-07-11 23:19:37 UTC
1. Install a font with many styles - Gill Sans, for example
2. Open the GTK+ font selection dialog
3. Select each style and look at the preview pane

Gill Sans, for example, has lots of different styles: Light Shadowed, Light,
Light Italic, Regular, Condensed, Ultra bold, Extra Bold Display, Ultra Bold
Condensed, Extra Bold, Italic, Bold Extra Condensed, Bold Condensed, Shadowed,
Bold and Bold Italic. However, GTK+ does not use the styles correctly. For most
non-italic styles it uses "Ultra Bold" instead of the selected style etc.

I investigated this a bit and noticed that when selecting the styles that get
mapped to "Ultra Bold" (for example) the PangoFontDescription for the font
contains the same style, variant, weight and stretch values, so it isn't
surprising that the same style (Ultra Bold) is being used instead of the correct
style. Since I don't know GTK+/Pango/Fontconfig/FT2 very well I have no idea why
this happens, though. This is not a Fontconfig problem - at least I get what I
request for by using ft-match.

Versions: GTK+/GLib 2.4.4, Pango 1.5.0, Fontconfig 2.2.3 but this has been
present for a long time now.
Comment 1 Owen Taylor 2004-07-12 14:18:31 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 95043 ***