Difference between revisions of "Talk:Font configuration"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Troubleshooting section revision)
(Remove closed discussions.)
(28 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
== freetype2 config changes ==
  
== Troubleshooting section revision ==
+
freetype2 no longer uses local.conf (same with infinality) and has switched to /etc/fonts/conf.d/* config files symlinked to /etc/fonts/conf.avail/*. I'm happy to update this page but don't want to step on the plans of someone more informed than I. If I don't hear back in a week or so I'll go ahead and add some minor changes to reflect this new configuration setup.
I'm attempting to rewrite this to a more formal English while also doing some reorganization. This will take some time. I know I'll make some mistakes and any corrections, rewordings, and edits are appreciated.
+
:Freetype2 has had conf.avail and conf.d for a while. One of the files in conf.d is "51-local.conf" and that lets you use /etc/fonts/local.conf for your own local settings. The freetype2-infinality package just now installs the default non-customized Infinality config to conf.avail so people know it exists without reading the documentation. [[User:Thestinger|thestinger]] 13:18, 30 November 2011 (EST)
:--[[User:Thisoldman|Thisoldman]] 08:47, 25 November 2009 (EST)
+
  
== Comments ==
+
== Contradictory recommendations? ==
  
Saw your almost-complete re-write here and on the [[Fonts]] page. Very nice work Manolo.
+
I'm not familiar with fontconfig - I've configured it rarely and a long time ago for a different OS. So I'm not sure if something is just not clear to me but as I read the article, it is giving me contradictory instructions:
: --[[User:Gen2ly|Gen2ly]] 00:39, 12 November 2009 (EST)
+
* early on, it suggests enabling both the autohinter and subpixel rendering to improve appearance after installing msfonts
 +
* later on, it says that the autohinter should not be used with subpixel rendering
 +
I realise that the methods used to enable these are different in the two cases (one sets up symlinks in conf.d; one adds sections to local.conf) but if this explains the apparent inconsistency, it would be really good to explain why there's no conflict in this case. --[[User:Margali|Margali]] 19:07, 4 March 2012 (EST)
  
:Thanks. In all fairness, I didn't contribute any content. [[User:Manolo|manolo]] 17:16, 12 November 2009 (EST)
+
== Autogenerating missing shapes and weights ==
  
:: :rolleyes: --[[User:Gen2ly|Gen2ly]] 17:46, 12 November 2009 (EST)
+
Since the article is about improving the appearance of fonts, I would suggest qualifying the section which explains how to have fontconfig generate italics and bold/bolder fonts on the fly. I doubt very much that it is faking italics. I assume it fakes slanted versions (which are not the same as italics). Moreover, it is unlikely that the results of autogeneration will be especially pleasing. Font designers would abhor such things and not, I think, because they need the work! Faked versions can be acceptable but they will not look as good - the spacing will not be optimal, the shapes of the glyphs and the metrics will not be quite right as good fonts vary these things appropriately for different weights, shapes and sizes. --[[User:Margali|Margali]] 19:13, 4 March 2012 (EST)
  
::: lol i just moved stuff around, didnt add anything. [[User:Manolo|manolo]] 17:51, 12 November 2009 (EST)
+
== Configuration confusion ==
  
== Suggestions ==
+
As currently set out, I'm not clear what the relationship is between configuration via symlinks in conf.d (adding to conf.avail as needed) and via local.conf. Should these be used for different aspects of configuration? Or are they equivalent/interchangeable?
  
Suggestions for edits to this page.
+
I also don't quite understand about the numbering. It looked to me as if higher numbered files under conf.d were more specific than lower numbered ones. I assumed this was so that e.g. config specific to a particular font overrode general, default config for all fonts. But the article suggests that is wrong. So should I be renumbering the files there in order to get this behaviour?
  
=== Thoughts on merging with Fonts page ===
+
e.g. Will the font-specific set up in 20-unhint-small-dejavu-sans-mono.conf get overridden by 10-bcihint.conf (a file I created with the section for BCI hints from the article)? I used 10- because that's the number for the autohinter file under conf.avail so I assumed that number was about right.
  
If the decision to merge is made, then it would be very helpful to leave a reference either here pointing to the "Fonts" page and/or on the Fonts page pointing here so anyone who uses this page as a reference for the font information can easily find it. Just a simple title and then something like "The Xorg Font Configuration Page" was merged with the "Fonts" page, now available at http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Fonts.
+
--[[User:Margali|Margali]] 19:23, 4 March 2012 (EST)
 
+
For the combined title, 'Fonts' works, but it could also be something like 'Fonts & Xorg Font Configuration'.
+
 
+
:This page is about configuration, [[Fonts]] is about adding fonts. Lists go over there, troubleshooting goes here. I did this because otherwise it'd be a behemoth of an article. [[User:Manolo|manolo]] 12:24, 11 November 2009 (EST)
+
 
+
=== xtt ===
+
 
+
The word "xtt" is used at the beginning but not defined.  I must admit that I'm unfamiliar with it.  - [[User:KitchM|KitchM]] 10:29, 23 August 2009 (EDT)
+
 
+
=== New font option ===
+
 
+
With the new structure I made a file for /etc/fonts/conf.avail:
+
File: 11-no-anti-aliasing.conf                                             
+
<?xml version="1.0"?>
+
<!DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM "fonts.dtd">
+
<!-- conf.d/sub-pixel.conf -->
+
<fontconfig>
+
    <match target="pattern">
+
            <edit name="antialias" mode="assign"><bool>false</bool></edit>
+
    </match>
+
</fontconfig>
+
 
+
Which you have to symlink to /etc/fonts/conf.d <br>
+
It works brilliantly. [[User:Gilneas|Gilneas]] 01:03, 26 October 2006 (PDT)Gilneas
+

Revision as of 05:38, 20 March 2013

freetype2 config changes

freetype2 no longer uses local.conf (same with infinality) and has switched to /etc/fonts/conf.d/* config files symlinked to /etc/fonts/conf.avail/*. I'm happy to update this page but don't want to step on the plans of someone more informed than I. If I don't hear back in a week or so I'll go ahead and add some minor changes to reflect this new configuration setup.

Freetype2 has had conf.avail and conf.d for a while. One of the files in conf.d is "51-local.conf" and that lets you use /etc/fonts/local.conf for your own local settings. The freetype2-infinality package just now installs the default non-customized Infinality config to conf.avail so people know it exists without reading the documentation. thestinger 13:18, 30 November 2011 (EST)

Contradictory recommendations?

I'm not familiar with fontconfig - I've configured it rarely and a long time ago for a different OS. So I'm not sure if something is just not clear to me but as I read the article, it is giving me contradictory instructions:

  • early on, it suggests enabling both the autohinter and subpixel rendering to improve appearance after installing msfonts
  • later on, it says that the autohinter should not be used with subpixel rendering

I realise that the methods used to enable these are different in the two cases (one sets up symlinks in conf.d; one adds sections to local.conf) but if this explains the apparent inconsistency, it would be really good to explain why there's no conflict in this case. --Margali 19:07, 4 March 2012 (EST)

Autogenerating missing shapes and weights

Since the article is about improving the appearance of fonts, I would suggest qualifying the section which explains how to have fontconfig generate italics and bold/bolder fonts on the fly. I doubt very much that it is faking italics. I assume it fakes slanted versions (which are not the same as italics). Moreover, it is unlikely that the results of autogeneration will be especially pleasing. Font designers would abhor such things and not, I think, because they need the work! Faked versions can be acceptable but they will not look as good - the spacing will not be optimal, the shapes of the glyphs and the metrics will not be quite right as good fonts vary these things appropriately for different weights, shapes and sizes. --Margali 19:13, 4 March 2012 (EST)

Configuration confusion

As currently set out, I'm not clear what the relationship is between configuration via symlinks in conf.d (adding to conf.avail as needed) and via local.conf. Should these be used for different aspects of configuration? Or are they equivalent/interchangeable?

I also don't quite understand about the numbering. It looked to me as if higher numbered files under conf.d were more specific than lower numbered ones. I assumed this was so that e.g. config specific to a particular font overrode general, default config for all fonts. But the article suggests that is wrong. So should I be renumbering the files there in order to get this behaviour?

e.g. Will the font-specific set up in 20-unhint-small-dejavu-sans-mono.conf get overridden by 10-bcihint.conf (a file I created with the section for BCI hints from the article)? I used 10- because that's the number for the autohinter file under conf.avail so I assumed that number was about right.

--Margali 19:23, 4 March 2012 (EST)