Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

lmello · 2013-06-26 02:11:39

Well today xorg-server packages has been updated. I'm using gnome and I usually set my font hinting to 'full'... however after this update the font rendering changed. Using either gsettings or the tweak tool I notice *no* difference at all between 'medium' and 'full' subpixel hinting...

Bug? Misconfiguration from my part? Should I just wait untill other (which?) xorg packages in the queue to be recompiled/updated?

Last edited by lmello (2013-06-26 03:11:10)

thisoldman · 2013-06-26 03:55:32

I don't know if this causes what you are seeing, but the freetype2 package was updated. From http://sourceforge.net/projects/freetyp … pe2/2.5.0/ README:

CHANGES BETWEEN 2.4.12 and 2.5
...
- Another round of TrueType subpixel hinting fixes.

mirandir · 2013-06-26 04:56:16

Fonts's render has changed with Freetype2 2.5 : http://blogs.adobe.com/typblography/201 … etype.html

lmello · 2013-07-01 21:12:42

Thanks for the info guys!

Well today's new xorg update somehow delivered me sharper-looking fonts. Still, no difference between 'medium' and 'full' hinting, guess it's the new font rendering engine.

tom.ty89 · 2013-07-04 18:00:26

Same issue here (Blur text is what I concern). Confirmed that it's related to freetype2.5 (text is sharp again after downgrading to 2.4)
Anyone know how to fix it? Is it a bug or setting problem? My xorg is already up-to-date.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/freetyp … pe2/2.5.0/
Here said that it's buggy with 64bit. Is it one of the bugs?

I am with GNOME3 too but never touch any tweak tool or "hidden dconf setting". Two installation, share the same issue.

Last edited by tom.ty89 (2013-07-04 18:01:56)

bohoomil · 2013-07-04 18:35:03

Maybe it's time you tried to tweak your font configuration? Freetype2 2.5.0.1 is working just fine.

lmello · 2013-07-04 20:32:23

@tom.ty89 provided a vital piece of information:

- 64bit compilation of the new CFF engine was buggy.

I happen to have x86_64 here.

Well fonts ARE pretty sharp, it's just Cantarell really which became a bit blurrier after the upgrade.

@bohoomil, I tried to turn the auto-hinter on with a symlink on /etc/fonts/conf.d, then Cantarell was sharper while the Microsoft web fonts looked like crap...

bohoomil · 2013-07-04 21:02:42

We should avoid using autohinter on MS fonts. However, we can try and apply custom settings to Cantarell, for example:

$ cat /etc/fonts/conf.avail/95-cantarell.conf

<?xml version='1.0'?>
<!DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM 'fonts.dtd'>
<fontconfig>

<match target="font">
    <test name="family">
      <string>Cantarell</string>
    </test>
    <edit name="autohint" mode="assign">
      <bool>true</bool>
    </edit>
    <edit name="hintstyle" mode="assign">
      <const>hintslight</const>
    </edit>
  </match>

</fontconfig>

You can experiment with all settings available in fontconfig.

Besides, we are using the most recent freetype2 in infinality-bundle, with CFF engine enabled. If there were problems with it, we'd simply stick with a previous release instead.

Last edited by bohoomil (2013-07-04 22:40:01)

tom.ty89 · 2013-07-05 18:29:22

bohoomil wrote:

Maybe it's time you tried to tweak your font configuration?

It's a bad idea for me. Tweak ALWAYS mess things up in my cases.

lmello wrote:

Well fonts ARE pretty sharp, it's just Cantarell really which became a bit blurrier after the upgrade.

That's true. It seems that only Cantarell got a problem with the new freetype2 for me too.
So maybe Cantarell needs some changes for the new engine?

bohoomil wrote:

Besides, we are using the most recent freetype2 in infinality-bundle, with CFF engine enabled. If there were problems with it, we'd simply stick with a previous release instead.

Honestly I think the maintainer shouldn't go 2.5 when there is such a "buggy 64bit" statement (when Arch officially only supports i686 and x86_64).
But since the issue is not THAT serious (e.g. all text disappear from time to time ), I don't expect the package in the repo would be rolled back to 2.4.
I guess "--ignore freetype2" is the only solution for me now.

Last edited by tom.ty89 (2013-07-05 18:31:36)

bohoomil · 2013-07-05 19:41:25

tom.ty89 wrote:

It's a bad idea for me. Tweak ALWAYS mess things up in my cases.

So learn to use it. All it will do is change the basic settings available also in fontconfig. The problem may be that it won't disable fontconfig, so you should experiment a bit and make Gnome native font settings work properly with fontconfig.

tom.ty89 wrote:

when there is such a "buggy 64bit" statement

Show me the bug report, please.

brebs · 2013-07-06 03:24:36

Cantarell is a truetype font, nothing to do with CFF.

Medium & full hinting have been identical for me, for a very long time - lost track of the years.

bohoomil · 2013-07-06 03:46:52

Cantarell is available in OTF format, too. This is actually the default one in Arch Linux: cantarell-fonts.

lmello · 2013-07-06 06:53:36

@bohoomil,

Thanks, I noticed the package contained a fontconfig file, so I symliked it and it looks sharper now.

brebs · 2013-07-06 07:45:45

Cantarell is also available in texlive 2013 as a pfb font, in /usr/share/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/public/cantarell/

84817 Cantarell-Bold.pfb
68377 Cantarell-Regular.pfb

Both of them, according to fc-query, have:

fontversion: 0(i)(s)
fontformat: "Type 1"(s)

So I'm idly wondering which of the ttf, otf and pfb versions look best

tom.ty89 · 2013-07-06 13:58:02

https://plus.google.com/111457576238197 … 2LN2JZWfVw
http://pkgbuild.com/~heftig/screenshots … :30:44.png
So this is not a bug!?

What I enjoy:
http://s12.postimg.org/nu3zcqy23/image.png
http://s8.postimg.org/zc49vgnhv/image.png

What tortures me:
http://s16.postimg.org/bie6bgh9v/image.png
http://s21.postimg.org/v0cb9vv1h/image.png

It actually not so obvious how bad it is when it's on 768. It looks even worse on 1080.
I might post it later when I get back to my office, in case the maintainer didn't see it before.

I thought that my monitor is dying at the first time I saw the change.

brebs · 2013-07-06 14:10:13

tom.ty89 wrote:

So this is not a bug!?

Looks like another fontconfig tweak to be added, that's all.

It's usually simply:

autohint true, hintslight
vs
autohint false, hintfull

See my config for examples.

tom.ty89 · 2013-07-06 15:41:40

brebs wrote:

Cantarell is a truetype font, nothing to do with CFF.

bohoomil wrote:

Cantarell is available in OTF format, too. This is actually the default one in Arch Linux: cantarell-fonts.

So I try to switch the otf file to ttf file from https://git.gnome.org/browse/cantarell-fonts/tree/ttf
Guess what? The text in 2.4 looks similar as it does in 2.5!

https://mail.gnome.org/archives/commits … 05908.html
Then I googled a bit and I found this.
Hey I got the word! FUZZY! Both the ttf and freetype 2.5 gives me FUZZY Cantarell!

So that's a (upstream) bug (at least in my opinion). Just that I am not sure which should take the responsibilty.
Should cantarell make some changes to adapt the new freetype? Or is it the fact that the new cff engine is not working in the right way?

Moreover, I just found another issue/bug. Take a look at the screenshots of GIMP on my last post. Compare the numbers on the title bar.

By the way, can anyone with i686 installation tell me that are those issue happening to you?
Should I file a bug report to ask the devs to roll back to 2.4?

Last edited by tom.ty89 (2013-07-06 15:47:52)

brebs · 2013-07-06 15:47:28

I forgot to look in my own config file, for where Cantarell has been tweaked. Here they are, the first tweak is by Infinality, presumably to fix a strange issue:

    <!-- Fixes issues where Cantarell is not being displayed -->
    <match target="font">
        <test name="family">
            <string>Cantarell</string>
        </test>
        <edit name="family" mode="assign" binding="strong">
            <string>Cantarell</string>
        </edit>
    </match>

    <match target="font">
        <test name="family"><string>Cantarell</string></test>
        <edit mode="assign" name="autohint"><bool>true</bool></edit>
        <edit mode="assign" name="hintstyle"><const>hintslight</const></edit>
    </match>

    <!-- To stop 'e' from looking vertically compressed -->
    <match target="font">
        <test name="family"><string>Cantarell</string></test>
        <test name="weight" compare="more_eq"><const>bold</const></test>
        <edit mode="assign" name="autohint"><bool>false</bool></edit>
        <edit mode="assign" name="hintstyle"><const>hintnone</const></edit>
    </match>

Try those in a new file, /etc/fonts/conf.d/91-cantarell.conf, to make sure they override your existing rules - still fuzzy?

tom.ty89 · 2013-07-06 16:00:16

Sorry, nothing changes. At least nothing visible enough for me to notice.
Created a file exactly and only with what you quote. No symlink or copy of the 31-cantarell.conf in conf.d. Rebooted the machine.

bohoomil · 2013-07-06 16:01:34

tom.ty89 wrote:

So this is not a bug!?

Not really. This is merely individual preferences. For comparison, here is 'my' Cantarell: click. You can either deal with it, or try to alter your font configuration (starting with simple actions suggested by brebs, through more complex described in the Wiki) if the new look is such a torture for your. Waiting for things to turn back to what they once were seems like waiting for Godot, though.

brebs · 2013-07-06 16:05:50

tom.ty89 wrote:

nothing changes

I'd be suspicious of that. Add this line, mixed in at the appropriate points, to make the font conspicuously *ugly*, to check that these rules are taking effect:

<edit mode="assign" name="antialias"><bool>false</bool></edit>

No need to restart the PC, just restart the app involved.

Last edited by brebs (2013-07-06 16:06:43)

tom.ty89 · 2013-07-06 16:37:10

http://s18.postimg.org/xdt3uthtz/test.png

It does nothing too. Maybe GNOME ignore the setting.
I tried the evil ( ) gnome-tweak-tool. Changed hinting to slight. I admit that it looks a bit similar as what is in 2.4.
But it's just that fonts look "thinner". It's still fuzzy.

Edit: Changing the hinting to slight seems fixing the "number issue" I mentioned before.

@bohomil
So is 'your' cantarell a result of any specifc 'tweak'? What arch (32/64) are you with? Your cantarell definitely looks better than mine.

Last edited by tom.ty89 (2013-07-06 16:40:37)

bohoomil · 2013-07-06 16:49:39

x86_64, the details can be found in my signature. However, this is only a suggested solution, one of many possible, not the best and most universal approach, which, if necessary, can be tweaked to meet particular needs. You may treat it like a starting point for your own experiments. If you are patient enough, you will certainly get exactly what you want.

brebs · 2013-07-06 17:45:41

tom.ty89 wrote:

It does nothing too. Maybe GNOME ignore the setting.

Sounds like cairo-respect-fontconfig.patch is still needed. It's in Gentoo, and is a patch to apply to cairo.

Of course, I'm using Infinality's freetype, and you're not

I've just done a quick test, and the texlive 2013 Cantarell font files in PFB format are better than in TTF. Here's TTF with the bold-specific rule I mentioned above, which is now removed (seems obsolete, probably fixed by a recent freetype patch), and removed in the other 2 screenshots.

Last edited by brebs (2013-07-06 18:47:02)

tom.ty89 · 2013-07-06 18:20:04

I tried the infinality-bundle. It fixes the "number issue" and it's much sharper. Still I prefer what text looks in 2.4 generic.
I don't know how to describe the problem with the bundle. It's kind of like I am using rbga AA. The text seems to have some "color fringes".

I just couldn't understand why Mr Steffens would say that "it's making Cantarell tolerable".
Even if Cantarell is not a nice font, making it blur doesn't help at all.

The point is, the gnome dev has once done something to make the font sharp.
(And Arch adopted it! Arch use the otf instead of the ttf!)
And now the new engine simply and only cancel the effect of that "real tweak". NOTHING MORE.

Guess this is enough for me. I don't know if this is a matter of taste but I certainly could not convice myself that it is.
I'll certainly file a bug report somewhere if I didn't see the google+ post.
I'll stick with 2.4 until it's breaking things down or there are some good change. R.I.P. my text

Last edited by tom.ty89 (2013-07-06 18:27:19)

Arch Linux

#1 2013-06-26 02:11:39

Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#2 2013-06-26 03:55:32

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#3 2013-06-26 04:56:16

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#4 2013-07-01 21:12:42

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#5 2013-07-04 18:00:26

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#6 2013-07-04 18:35:03

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#7 2013-07-04 20:32:23

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#8 2013-07-04 21:02:42

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#9 2013-07-05 18:29:22

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#10 2013-07-05 19:41:25

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#11 2013-07-06 03:24:36

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#12 2013-07-06 03:46:52

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#13 2013-07-06 06:53:36

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#14 2013-07-06 07:45:45

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#15 2013-07-06 13:58:02

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#16 2013-07-06 14:10:13

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#17 2013-07-06 15:41:40

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#18 2013-07-06 15:47:28

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#19 2013-07-06 16:00:16

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#20 2013-07-06 16:01:34

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#21 2013-07-06 16:05:50

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#22 2013-07-06 16:37:10

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#23 2013-07-06 16:49:39

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#24 2013-07-06 17:45:41

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

#25 2013-07-06 18:20:04

Re: Fonts and xorg-server 1.14.2-1

Board footer