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 567856 - regression: Renders my favorite font with letterspacing 1px too wide
regression: Renders my favorite font with letterspacing 1px too wide
Status: RESOLVED NOTGNOME
Product: vte
Classification: Core
Component: general
0.19.x
Other All
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: VTE Maintainers
VTE Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2009-01-15 13:10 UTC by Tobias Wolf
Modified: 2009-01-20 20:38 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.25/2.26


Attachments
Normal advance width (336.12 KB, image/png)
2009-01-15 13:12 UTC, Tobias Wolf
Details
Too wide advance width (471.78 KB, image/png)
2009-01-15 13:13 UTC, Tobias Wolf
Details

Description Tobias Wolf 2009-01-15 13:10:13 UTC
Please describe the problem:
Upon updating to 0.19.4 I immediately noticed that the letterspacing was too wide. I reverted to 0.17.4 and the width difference in a normal 80x24 gnome-terminal is 80 pixels:

too-wide_0.19.4.png 820x569
normal_0.17.4.png 740x569

I only find this with one font, two other fonts tested don’t exhibit this behaviour.

Steps to reproduce:


Actual results:


Expected results:


Does this happen every time?


Other information:
Comment 1 Tobias Wolf 2009-01-15 13:12:28 UTC
Created attachment 126502 [details]
Normal advance width
Comment 2 Tobias Wolf 2009-01-15 13:13:24 UTC
Created attachment 126503 [details]
Too wide advance width
Comment 3 Christian Persch 2009-01-15 13:29:02 UTC
(In reply to comment #0)
> I only find this with one font, two other fonts tested don’t exhibit this
> behaviour.

Which font is that, exactly? And if you type the same text in, say, gedit, with the same font, does it render the 'correct' way or the 'too wide' way ?
Comment 4 Tobias Wolf 2009-01-15 16:07:21 UTC
It’s fine in Gedit and in Gvim. It’s only 1px too wide in the devel vte.
The font in question is commercial, and not freely available. 
Comment 5 Christian Persch 2009-01-16 17:15:39 UTC
For now we don't need to access the font file, but getting the *name* of the font would be good :)
Comment 6 Tobias Wolf 2009-01-16 17:42:37 UTC
The font is this one: http://www.fontshop.com/fonts/singles/schiavi_design/pragmata/
Comment 7 Behdad Esfahbod 2009-01-19 19:50:17 UTC
Is that with trunk?

Can you add a couple of printf's to see what's happening around this line in vtepangocairo.c:

        info->width  = PANGO_PIXELS (howmany (logical.width, strlen(VTE_DRAW_SINGLE_WIDE_CHARACTERS)));


Of course, we can remove our own stuff and simply use pango font metrics.  Maybe we should do that.
Comment 8 Tobias Wolf 2009-01-20 19:46:17 UTC
No, it the pre-release(?) 0.19.4-0ubuntu1 with these patches:

12_python_reaper.patch
25_optional-ncurses.patch
26_optional-x.patch
30_fix_build_no_pty_helper.patch
60_termcap-home-end.patch
90_autoreconf.patch
91_keep_fds.patch
92_pangocairo_full_bold_fonts.patch
93_add_alt_screen_scroll_toggle.patch

Could it be patch number 92? This font does not come with any boldface ...

I’d like to test in the way you suggested, but since I go by the designation of »noob« I’d need more verbose instructions. (what to printf and how)

Also due to the patches, should I open a bug downstream instead? (i.e., Launchpad)
Comment 9 Behdad Esfahbod 2009-01-20 19:54:29 UTC
gaaaaaaaah.  Yes, it's definitely patch 92.  I hate it.  I hate it.  I hate it.
There's a reason that patch is not committed upstream yet.  Ubuntu keeps pushing any junk they can get their hands on and I get the bug report.  Thank you again Ubuntu :(.

Sorry about that.  Nothing I can help you with.
Comment 10 Tobias Wolf 2009-01-20 20:14:06 UTC
Oh no. Embarrassed to have pestered you guys with this. Scusami. Taking it downstream then.

Hope you’re still well, Behdad. People are talking about seizures on television now.
Comment 11 Behdad Esfahbod 2009-01-20 20:19:29 UTC
I had to let it out.  I'm happy again now :).
Comment 12 Kees Cook 2009-01-20 20:24:54 UTC
I'd love to see bug 54926 officially fixed.  Can someone from upstream please work with me to see it solved?  It's been ignored for quite some time now.
Comment 13 Behdad Esfahbod 2009-01-20 20:38:17 UTC
Taking a look at it right now.  "ignored" is very unfair word.  Perhaps it's that no one has got the time to review it yet.