Which? SUSE for example does use the same patchset we do use..
Maybe they don't have it because they use a older freetype?
Maybe they use old version of freetype, I don't know exactly, but I know that
in SuSe 10.1 all is ok.
I can ask the version there if you need.
Ah, it's in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=378619
where you didn't refer to..
Yeah, exactly this patch.
this patch is sufficiently old so that it doesn't apply to
current OOo versions
Pity.. I thought this patch can help.
I just checked it myself, the patch is included into 2.0.4rc1, slightly
different, as in 2.0.4rc1 fist the unsigned's are defined and from it the
signed's, but that shouldn't matter (if I'm not entirely mistaken at this
late hour).
So, need I try 2.0.4rc1?
The problem is that the bytecode interpretation doesn't work, I just asked
several questions on the freetype-list:
http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/freetype/2006-09/msg00050.html
Sasha, is this the same problem you have?
Exactly the same problem.
Best Regards,
Alexander.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
