LlamaZorz, when making edits please consider other users. This section is about installing, not about special considerations for those that use the Gnome desktop. A couple things too about your edit: not everybody's monitor is 96 DPI, not everyone's screen is of type RGB, hintslight is usually preferable but not always. All three of these have already been mentioned in the article. Please read the entire article before adding content to help save on repetative content.
--Gen2ly 21:46, 14 December 2009 (EST)
I cant see how that really matters, Ubuntu gives those settings no matter what the computer or monitor used. The point of the patch was to get fonts in Arch to look like that of Ubuntu. If you don't choose the settings I provided then you will never get fonts that look like that in Ubuntu. I am simply trying to fill in gaps in your documentation, which their are many and I mean many. Just because you mention a topic on one section, doesn't imply that you cant qualify it in another place. I stand by my submission. I am going to resubmit it. LlamaZorz
- Just because you mention a topic on one section, doesn't imply that you cant qualify it in another place.
- From the heading Font_Configuration#LCD_filter_patched_packages and sub-heading Font_Configuration#Installation this section is about installing the LCD-patched packages. Putting configuration in this section does not fit in the form of this documentation and would divert most readers attention unnecessarily. If you look at this post in the forums, Arch users use a variety of DE, DE-like setups. Though GNOME isn't high on the list, this guide isn't written with it's exclusion or any other, it is written inclusively and for almost all reasons doesn't doesn't need to be desktop biased.
- ... Ubuntu gives those settings no matter what the computer or monitor used.
- Actually this is GNOME that does this, except for the 'Rendering' and 'Smoothing' settings as LCD which by the last LTS release, Ubuntu hadn't modified. Perhaps this has changed by then but the argument is void because: 1) Matching a desktop environments Font Control Panel has already been mentioned here; 2) Setting DPI, RGB, and hintslight have already been mentioned in this same section. Setting the correct DPI is critical to font hinting. If you follow the DPI link, read about how DPI effects font rendering and how 96 DPI was a previous standard that seldom gets used anymore.
- The point of the patch was to get fonts in Arch to look like that of Ubuntu.
- Yes and no. By Ubuntu, I believe you might be referring to the GNOME desktop. The Ubuntu patches packages only differ slightly from the 'Original LCD' package and are actually built upon it with a few extra fontconfig configurations included. As to the direct correlation to the GNOME desktop there is none and will work for other desktops like XFCE, KDE...
- I am simply trying to fill in gaps in your documentation, which their are many and I mean many.
- This statement I can't use LlamaZorz because it gives no references, details... What sections, descriptions are omitted? How does one section not describe the details you think that most users will need?
- Going to revert to previous version. Please, give information and details if you believe that this information is a good idea to this article. Particularly: how it doesn't repeat information unnecessarily (DPI, RGB, hintslight, previous mention of Font Control Panel); and where you think it should be included.
- --Gen2ly 09:35, 16 December 2009 (EST)
Merge with Fonts
Right now there are the pages: Fonts and Font_Configuration. Both try to explain the same thing and both have way different (and valuable) information. Both have the same goal: setting up your fonts so therefore i suggest to merge this "Font_Configuration" with "Fonts" and delete this "Font_Configuration" page.
I guess people search on "fonts" first before searching on "font configuration".
- The fonts article talks about actual fonts/glyphs, while this talks about configuring the appearance/rendering. Both of them are really long articles, so I don't think a merge would be a good idea. Links between the articles are definitely a must have though. Thestinger 15:14, 1 October 2010 (EDT)
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)
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)