-=| Davide Viti, Wed, 6 Jun 2007 21:09:17 +0200 |=-
> I've done it and updated the pngs for Bulgarian; looks like 2.16 and
> 2.17 do not differ now. Please check
>
> http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/gtk-frontend/screenshots/
Both look fine. Thank you very much.
--
damJabberID: [EMAIL PRO
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 09:30:38PM +0300, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> -=| Davide Viti, Mon, 4 Jun 2007 20:05:57 +0200 |=-
> > Looks like there are differences only for "bg" and "he": probably some
> > glyphs got hinted.
>
> I'd say that the last line of BG looks different than upper lines. Any
> idea w
Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> -=| Davide Viti, Mon, 4 Jun 2007 20:05:57 +0200 |=-
>> Looks like there are differences only for "bg" and "he": probably some
>> glyphs got hinted.
>
> I'd say that the last line of BG looks different than upper lines. Any
> idea why is that?
I think it was broken in 2.16-1
-=| Davide Viti, Mon, 4 Jun 2007 20:05:57 +0200 |=-
> Looks like there are differences only for "bg" and "he": probably some
> glyphs got hinted.
I'd say that the last line of BG looks different than upper lines. Any
idea why is that?
I see similar effect on ne, ta, zh_TW - could this be caused b
Hi all,
finally managed to create new screenshots [1] meant to compare
fonts rendering inside g-i; the problems reported in the
previous round of screenshots [2] seem to have gone with
the upgrade to newer libraries.
Looks like there are differences only for "bg" and "he": probably some
glyphs go
5 matches
Mail list logo