On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 10:18:42PM -0600, Billy Biggs wrote:
> Right now, GNOME users default to 96 DPI, xdm users default to 100
> DPI, and other users are randomly assigned DPIs anywhere in the range of
> 75-133. I believe that right now, we should adopt the GNOME standard
> everywhere as the
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 09:26 +0100, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 10:18:42PM -0600, Billy Biggs wrote:
> > Right now, GNOME users default to 96 DPI, xdm users default to 100
> > DPI, and other users are randomly assigned DPIs anywhere in the range of
> > 75-133. I believ
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> tag 275492 -moreinfo
Bug#275492: xserver-xfree86: [debconf] suboptimal driver suggested for Intel
Corp. 82852/855GM Integrated Graphics Device rev 2
Tags were: moreinfo
Tags removed: moreinfo
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if yo
tag 275492 -moreinfo
thanks
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:09:27AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 04:27:17PM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> Version: 4.3.0.dfsg.1-8
>> Severity: normal
>> New install; the suggested driver is vesa, instead of i810.
> When you run:
> $
Package: xserver-common
Version: 4.3.0.dfsg.1-8
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
It's an 'old' bug wich should be fixed ...
lists.debian.org/debian-x/2000/12/msg00114.html
$man Xwrapper.config
[...]
Available options are:
allowed_users
may be set to one of t
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 280146 xlibmesa-dri
Bug#280146: scorched3d: Locks X on powerpc
Bug reassigned from package `scorched3d' to `xlibmesa-dri'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Debian bug tracking system administrator
Anders Karlsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> The best scenario would be if X + Desktop Environment picked up on the
> actual DPI of the screen(s) and adjusted for that automatically.
I disagree. If I hook my laptop up to a data projector, I do not want
all of my fonts to shrink to nothingness.
I
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:12:08AM -0600, Billy Biggs wrote:
> > The best scenario would be if X + Desktop Environment picked up on the
> > actual DPI of the screen(s) and adjusted for that automatically.
>
> I disagree. If I hook my laptop up to a data projector, I do not want
> all of my font
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:12:08AM -0600, Billy Biggs wrote:
> Anders Karlsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > The best scenario would be if X + Desktop Environment picked up on the
> > actual DPI of the screen(s) and adjusted for that automatically.
>
> I disagree. If I hook my laptop up to a data
Jean-Christophe Dubacq ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Unless if you are working with graphics. If I want to evaluate the
> proper rendering of a map I am working on (either in bitmap or in
> vectorial mode), I pretty would like to check how my map compares to
> the counters that are exactly 3/4" or 1/2" w
Simon Law ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > I disagree. If I hook my laptop up to a data projector, I do not
> > want all of my fonts to shrink to nothingness.
>
> I think that the data projector would have to lie about its DPI. It
> doesn't even make sense for a data projector to tell anyone about its
Around 15 o'clock on Dec 5, Billy Biggs wrote:
> This is exactly what I am proposing, basically. Screen DPI today is
> meaningless on Windows because they use it as a scale factor,
> meaningless on MacOS because it is always 72, and meaningless on Linux
> because it is set basically randomly unl
Keith Packard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> In the X world, we now have two resolutions -- the "real" resolution
> as reported by the X server screen size information, and the "font"
> resolution as used by Xft (the Xft.dpi resource). I would like to see
> the "real" resolution be largely ignored by app
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 08:55:17PM -0600, Billy Biggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I discussed this issue further and updated my proposal. Given that
> many people do believe that a measure of the "real" DPI is a useful
> thing to keep around, and that all font rendering systems seem to honour
>
Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 08:55:17PM -0600, Billy Biggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I discussed this issue further and updated my proposal. Given that
> > many people do believe that a measure of the "real" DPI is a useful
> > thing to keep around, and that
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 12:20:22PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > > Does XTerm #196, in xterm 4.3.0.dfsg.1-8, make either of these any
> > > > better?
[...]
> I can't conveniently install that version of the package; perhaps my test
> was inadvertently invalid. I've just returned from a holid
16 matches
Mail list logo
