Talk:Font configuration

From ArchWiki
Revision as of 14:46, 15 October 2013 by Aexoxea (Talk | contribs) (October 2013 Font Quality: new section)

Jump to: navigation, search

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)

October 2013 Font Quality

For anyone else experiencing issues with the quality of font rendering in some circumstances since mid-October 2013, it is possible you are experiencing this issue (BBS#1337433); workaround there courtesy of user FDServices (many thanks!).

The package in question in that post is extra/fontconfig 2.11.0-1, that version being current as at 2013-10-13 (UTC).

I am noting this here for the benefit of other contributors who may come hunting for this over time; not sure if (or how) it should be worked into the main article, or whether the file in question should be restored to the package (it appears to have been an ArchLinux customisation).

--aexoxea (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)