Hi again,
Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
> But well, from what I see, it's just necessary a new upload reverting the
> patch.
> Agreed on this?
I can't get my quick-and-dirty thing to work, so the revert is
probably the simplest thing to do. Most of the information I was writing
is therefore
Hi all,
Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
> 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).
Argh !
I do not agree i thuink it worth to report upstream
Bastien
Le 16 mars 2010 21:52, "Nelson A. de Oliveira" a écrit :
Hi!
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Adam D. Barratt
wrote:
> I've just built and installed a set of local imagemagick packages with
> the suggested patch from upstream (adding
Hi!
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Adam D. Barratt
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:
(...)
> I
Hi again,
I think I have a better idea of what is happening: if I use one of the
fonts listed by
~ convert -list font
I get no error, and the output looks fine. Looking closer, I find that
there are several fonts missing from the newer version of imagemagick,
namely, the postscript fonts:
5 matches
Mail list logo
