Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

Singul · 2010-09-28 16:31:57

Hi guys,

I experienced a problem with font rendering in the mentioned applications after upgrading xulrunner from 1.9.2.10-1 to 1.9.2.10-2 today. It seems like font smoothing/subpixel rendering does not work as before. After downgrading to 1.9.2.10-1, it worked as expected again.

To make it more clearly, here is a comparison shot of the two different renderings. The top one is before, the bottom one after the upgrade. You can see that the font at the top is rendered more smoothly.

And here is a difference image:

Is anything known about changes which could cause this?

<edit>I have to correct this. The rendering in thunderbird was obviously not changed by the xulrunner upgrade, but by a separate thunderbird upgrade from 3.1.4-1 to 3.1.4-2.

<edit2>Additional information: I have the cleartype versions of freetype2, cairo and libxft installed, if that matters.

Last edited by Singul (2010-09-28 16:40:18)

wonder · 2010-09-28 16:44:11

https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/20868

we are using now their internal cairo

Singul · 2010-09-28 17:13:32

Does this mean that a patched xulrunner (and probably thunderbird?) package will be needed from now on to get the font rendering I had before? ..if so, it seems like I'll have to dig into packaging stuff, finally

itti · 2010-09-28 18:11:47

this suddenly made firefox a lot uglier on LCDs...

Singul · 2010-09-28 19:23:48

I've now compiled xulrunner with --enable-system-cairo as another package "xulrunner-system-cairo" providing xulrunner and doing the same with thunderbird now, as the mentioned bug did not occur for me. Would it be a good idea to submit those packages to AUR, so other people have an easier way to fix that for now without downgrading/IgnorePkg?

Last edited by Singul (2010-09-28 19:40:11)

JGC · 2010-09-28 22:34:10

File bugs at mozilla to update their internal snapshot and fix the bugs in their application if you want to have this changed inside the repositories. We decided to switch to internal cairo because 1.8 triggers crashes in seamonkey and 1.10 triggers bugs in animated gifs caused by invalid cairo API usage by mozilla.
The snapshot of cairo included in current mozilla versions is quite old and doesn't support half of the features that cairo 1.8 and 1.10 do.

I think it's ok to have a system-cairo version of xulrunner, thunderbird and seamonkey in AUR, just make sure to put the "provides=()" array correctly.

Singul · 2010-09-28 23:16:11

Okay, I will probably go and file bugs there. I already uploaded system-cairo versions of thunderbird and xulrunner to AUR. Got the provides=() thing wrong first, but provides=("thunderbird=${pkgver}") is correct, right?

wantilles · 2010-09-29 13:30:00

thunderbird-branded (*) in AUR is built with --enable-system-cairo in the mozconfig.

The same applies for firefox-pgo and firefox-pgo-beta packages.

(*) Another plus is that it includes calendar/lightning.

softtower · 2010-09-30 01:51:24

What the hell! How come "broken animated gifs" are more important that readable fonts?
Firefox is unusable now, cairo cannot, under any circumstances, be compiled into anything, because you are now giving a finger to user font preferences.

sudo pacman -Rc firefox

Ughh.

Not only Open Office fonts are broken on Arch, now FireFox is fucked up too! Do not ever package an app which is not linked to system cairo!

Thank you for uploading system-cairo version into AUR, but why do we need to alienate users by packaging the essential software in unusable shape? I can't believe anyone can actually stare at these ugly pixelated fonts, the same ones Arch punched me in the face I started X the first time, prior to finding and installing FIXED versions of cairo/fontconfig, etc. Why do we keep allowing broken fonts by default?

Last edited by softtower (2010-09-30 02:02:56)

Jodell · 2010-09-30 02:24:41

@softtower

I do not understand why you're bashing the packagers. They always strive to do their best. The reason given is valid but the thing about arch linux is there are always options.

I've installed the xulrunner-system-cairo from the AUR and my fonts look as good as before. Strangely, animated gif images do not blink anymore.

hokasch · 2010-09-30 08:44:47

I can't believe anyone can actually stare at these ugly pixelated fonts, the same ones Arch punched me in the face I started X the first time, prior to finding and installing FIXED versions of cairo/fontconfig, etc. Why do we keep allowing broken fonts by default?

Don't quite get what the fuzz is all about, my fonts look as crisp as ever (on a laptop lcd), the update changed absolutely nothing for me. I never used "fixed" versions of anything, can't really remember how I set up the fonts when I did this installation though (font config advice on the wiki I guess).

It is not the repo's maintainers job to keep packages synced up with any "fixed" packages in AUR, that is your own responsibility, and bitching about it won't help you any.

softtower · 2010-09-30 14:56:59

@hokasch

What you are saying is absolutely mind blowing to me, but I admit that there are people who do not mind (and don't even notice) having broken font rendering and missing out on the advances of the last 20 years in that area. Bytecode interpretation, subpixel rendering and hinting are all crippled in standard Arch packages.

> It is not the repo's maintainers job to keep packages synced up with any "fixed" packages in AUR

You are confused. Upstream builds of cairo/freetype do not need to be "fixed" - they natively support nice modern font rendering, it is Arch standard packaging that uses crippled compile options like most repos did 5-7 years ago due to patent issues.

> that is your own responsibility, and bitching about it won't help you any

Font rendering is a huge part of the core system. Are you saying it is users responsibility to swap the broken one for a properly compiled version? That is similar to shipping a broken kernel and telling me its my responsibility to recompile from source. And yes, there is nothing we can do but bitch, properly compiled packages are in AUR already, all they (maintainers) need to do is throw away their useless crap (cairo, fontconfig) and replace it with "ubuntu-patched" ones.

.:B:. · 2010-09-30 15:42:22

Softtower, if you are confident about your case I suggest you file a ticket on our bug tracker to improve the packages concerned.

And please keep in mind that opinions differ - especially when it comes to taste. De gustibus et coloribus... You're obviously feeling strongly about this issue, I can't ask you to keep your emotions in check, I can ask you to pay attention to your wording .

dunc · 2010-09-30 16:32:39

Hmm. Tricky situation. It looks like it's one bug or the other. Personally, I'd put up with the odd flickery GIF simply because, to me, using the system libraries is the right way of doing things.

But I'm not maintaining it, so it isn't my decision. I'll build it from the AUR. (Hey, at least I can; if this were most distros I'd have to grab the source manually, do the configure/make/make install dance and pray I had all the right -dev packages... )

userlander · 2010-09-30 16:47:02

Although I am empathetic to the hard (and really great) job the arch devs do, I want to voice my overall agreement with softtower on this issue. Fonts have been an off and on problem for me with arch since the beginning. I understand the devs are doing the best they can, especially when the actual problem is with the moz. devs. But fonts are the major way most users interact with the system, and I can tell you that almost nothing is more aggravating, to me at least, to suddenly "upgrade" and get presented with those really crappy fonts out of the blue. Just saying I understand the frustration, and I think he makes some good points about shipping broken packages and "blaming" it on upstream. If they're broken - don't use them! if possible. "Progress" that breaks stuff isn't really progress, imo.

hokasch wrote:

Don't quite get what the fuzz is all about, my fonts look as crisp as ever (on a laptop lcd), the update changed absolutely nothing for me. I never used "fixed" versions of anything, can't really remember how I set up the fonts when I did this installation though (font config advice on the wiki I guess).
It is not the repo's maintainers job to keep packages synced up with any "fixed" packages in AUR, that is your own responsibility, and bitching about it won't help you any.

Just pointing out that comments like these aren't really helpful, imho. So you didn't have the problem - that's good to know, but the "fuzz" is about the fact that some of us *DO* have the problem.

It typically doesn't show up on laptops, btw, only standalone LCDs for some reason (has always been the case for me, at least, with both LCDs and laptops, where the laptop never had the problem). So again, the fuss is that a major usability function got broken from an upgrade that shouldn't get broken, and imo it raises some good, if admittedly difficult to resolve, points, philosophical points, etc. about the packaging and upgrade process,

Singul · 2010-09-30 16:58:58

I can agree here that the difference is far less visible on my laptop, too (but it's visible!). Well, in the end it's the same rendering...

Last edited by Singul (2010-09-30 17:53:07)

litemotiv · 2010-09-30 19:05:58

I do think it's worth noticing that Arch is one of the few binary distros not shipping the modern font filters by default. As far as i know there shouldn't be a (legal) problem as long as we're not packaging Cleartype, but i'm not an expert and this needs to be validated.

So did anyone file a bug report for this yet?

Varnsen · 2010-09-30 19:14:04

I'm also not a fan of this change. The fonts just don't look right.

I think that if it's a problem with cairo-1.10.0-2 then cairo should be downgraded. I'm using cairo-lcd 1.8.10-1 at the moment which works fine with the fonts and has no problem with gifs.

Anyway, I will be using xulrunner-1.9.2.10-1 and ignoring upgrades until it's back to normal.

shak · 2010-09-30 20:42:06

This actually made firefox unsable , the only thing i need the lcd packages are to use them with firefox . A lot of hours in front of the screen , surfing make my eyes hurt with ugly fonts . Anyway the xulrunner-system-cairo seems to work for now but i do hope that there is a permanent and easier solution to this issue .

hokasch · 2010-09-30 22:30:42

Just pointing out that comments like these aren't really helpful, imho. So you didn't have the problem - that's good to know, but the "fuzz" is about the fact that some of us *DO* have the problem.

Let me rephrase:

If an update from the repos breaks your aur-package, don't get all mad at the packagers on bbs, just fix it yourself (like rebuilding with system-cairo). If you think there is something wrong with the packaging, file a bug.

P.S.:

softtower wrote:

What you are saying is absolutely mind blowing to me, but I admit that there are people who do not mind (and don't even notice) having broken font rendering and missing out on the advances of the last 20 years in that area. Bytecode interpretation, subpixel rendering and hinting are all crippled in standard Arch packages.

I did try the lcd-packages in the past (like last year...), but removed them because the result did look worse on my display. Maybe I am just "confused", or things aren't that clear cut as you might think. Not sure if screenshots really work for this, but this is how it looks right to my ignorant eyes...

Last edited by hokasch (2010-09-30 22:56:51)

shak · 2010-09-30 23:09:53

It's just a matter of taste really . What looks smooth to me is different than how it looks to you . hokash like the fonts that way , softtower the other . There is no right or wrong

JGC · 2010-09-30 23:40:50

Varnsen wrote:

I'm also not a fan of this change. The fonts just don't look right.
I think that if it's a problem with cairo-1.10.0-2 then cairo should be downgraded. I'm using cairo-lcd 1.8.10-1 at the moment which works fine with the fonts and has no problem with gifs.
Anyway, I will be using xulrunner-1.9.2.10-1 and ignoring upgrades until it's back to normal.

There is no bug in cairo, mozilla just uses the API in incorrect ways. Mozilla doesn't support compiling with system cairo, but includes the flag for people who want to use it anyways. You're already using a patched unofficial version of cairo, so it's quite obvious that firefox will not use your patched cairo when it's built against internal cairo.

softtower · 2010-10-01 04:37:54

Hey guys, I have nothing to add here but only an apology for some harsh wording! I do appreciate all the hard work package maintainers put into my favorite distro. Font rendering and typography in general is hugely important to me, in fact, the modern builds of TrueType was one of just 2 reasons I switched from OSX back to Linux and I can't have it taken away from me.

@hokasch:

Since you asked... Your screenshot looks fine, you're just not using any of the advanced features i.e. your settings are very conservative: autohinter + strong hinting, no subpixel rendering, etc. Hence notice how 'th' is different from 'ey' in how "they" is rendered, moreover this setup won't work on high-DPI screens (will be very thin and hard to read) and non-English characters (Cyrillic in my case) will get obliterated. Some newer Apple/Microsoft fonts will also look much worse than your screenshot, especially on colored backgrounds (not uncommon on the web). I recommend ubuntu packages (cairo/freetype/etc) with slight hinting + subpixel rendering enabled (high-DPI friendly) as in the linked screenshot - try opening http://dpreview.com to compare.

http://img1.uploadscreenshot.com/images … 8-orig.png

BTW I'm loving this FF plugin which uploads page screenshots:
http://www.uploadscreenshot.com/ff-help

Cheers.

Singul · 2010-10-01 07:03:42

Maybe the hinting settings are something which has been forgotten to mention throughout this thread yet ..I believe the most obvious change appears with only slight hinting enabled. At least that was my experience AFAIR...cannot try it now, no time for that.

But thank you for all the replies to this thread. I didn't expect that so many people are bugged by a change that quite some don't even notice. It always seemed to me that I was one of really few who care about that font thing. In fact, if there was no way to get nice looking fonts (ok, there always is...but it depends on how hard or complicated it is), it would even be a reason for changing the distribution.

I already had similar problems with fonts in Debian, but this took me much more time than in Arch, as here I just had to set the hinting and Subpixel Rendering options and install the cleartype packages from AUR, which is really a Blessing if you are used to collecting your needed packages from a vast amount of different sources, because no central repository is there for user-built stuff. So thank you for the AUR. (This does not mean that I don't respect the work of the packagers for the official repositories. I do, absolutely! And in the end, my system-cairo packages are those just with a changed flag ;-))

Thanks again, guys. Maybe in the end we will solve this issue by getting Mozilla to use Cairo correctly. I really don't like having to decide between a bug with gif rendering and ugly fonts. Nobody should

unknwn · 2010-10-01 09:06:19

For people having this issue with firefox i also suggest to try firefox-pgo/beta package which doesn't use xulrunner so it is not necessary to build it. However you will have to build firefox-pgo itself however this package gives performance boost.

Last edited by unknwn (2010-10-01 09:07:09)

Arch Linux

#1 2010-09-28 16:31:57

Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#2 2010-09-28 16:44:11

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#3 2010-09-28 17:13:32

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#4 2010-09-28 18:11:47

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#5 2010-09-28 19:23:48

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#6 2010-09-28 22:34:10

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#7 2010-09-28 23:16:11

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#8 2010-09-29 13:30:00

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#9 2010-09-30 01:51:24

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#10 2010-09-30 02:24:41

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#11 2010-09-30 08:44:47

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#12 2010-09-30 14:56:59

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#13 2010-09-30 15:42:22

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#14 2010-09-30 16:32:39

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#15 2010-09-30 16:47:02

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#16 2010-09-30 16:58:58

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#17 2010-09-30 19:05:58

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#18 2010-09-30 19:14:04

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#19 2010-09-30 20:42:06

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#20 2010-09-30 22:30:42

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#21 2010-09-30 23:09:53

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#22 2010-09-30 23:40:50

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#23 2010-10-01 04:37:54

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#24 2010-10-01 07:03:42

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

#25 2010-10-01 09:06:19

Re: Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

Board footer