I do not agree i thuink it worth to report upstream Bastien
Le 16 mars 2010 21:52, "Nelson A. de Oliveira" <nao...@debian.org> a écrit : Hi! On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Adam D. Barratt <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk> wrote: > I've just built and installed a set of local imagemagick packages with > the suggested patch from upstream (adding "Utopia" as an alternative > font family) and I'm afraid I have to report that I still get the same > problem: (...) > If there's any further information I can provide to help, please let me > know. I'm sure you'd like to get the imagemagick transition finished as > quickly as I would. :-) Sure :-) On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Vincent Fourmond <fourm...@debian.org> wrote: > I don't know who'... Maybe you need to blame me? :-) >From [1] and from [2] we thought that by distributing an "empty" type.xml, ImageMagick would be able to use the system fonts. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/396420 [2] http://www.imagemagick.org/discourse-server/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15355 It seems that we didn't saw that ImageMagick was already using the system fonts PLUS the ghostscript ones (by explicitly including them in type.xml) [it could be true that on 2006 ImageMagick didn't had support for fontconfig, but now it has and it reads the system fonts] So I was wrong in understanding that ImageMagick wasn't reading the fonts now. One thing that I don't understand however (and if somebody knows why, I would be grateful for an explanation) is why fontconfig/imagemagick doesn't see the ghostscripts fonts (and why it's necessary to explicitly include them in type.xml). But well, from what I see, it's just necessary a new upload reverting the patch. Agreed on this? Thank you very much! And sorry for the mess. Best regards, Nelson _______________________________________________ Pkg-gmagick-im-team mailing list pkg-gmagick-im-t...@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-gmagick-im-team
