* Eckehard Berns [06.02.2012 14:49]:
> That was fast - the bug has been fixed in the git repository.
Confirmed, that did it :)
SOLVED
Thanks guys!!
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 02:25:38PM +0100, Eckehard Berns wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 01:39:07PM +0100, Uli Armbruster wrote:
> > Ok, since you guys obviously understand this a lot better than I do, would
> > one of you like to report this on the mupdf bugtracker?
>
> Ok, filed a bug report.
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 01:39:07PM +0100, Uli Armbruster wrote:
> Ok, since you guys obviously understand this a lot better than I do, would
> one of you like to report this on the mupdf bugtracker?
Ok, filed a bug report. (Just letting the mailing list know to avoid
duplicate bug reports.)
--
* Eckehard Berns [06.02.2012 12:47]:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 11:30:03PM +0100, Uli Armbruster wrote:
> > * Thomas Dean <78...@web.de> [02.02.2012 17:20]:
> > > On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 14:45:42 +0100, Uli Armbruster wrote:
> > > > Means, only after refocusing mupdf, it looks fine. It doesn't depe
> > + if (width != reqh || height != reqw) {
>
> why is 'width' compared to 'reqh' which I guess is "required height" ?
> and vice verse for height
Wow, my brain's still asleep I think. Not that it's early here...
--
Eckehard Berns
On 06/02/12 at 12:47pm, Eckehard Berns wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 11:30:03PM +0100, Uli Armbruster wrote:
> > * Thomas Dean <78...@web.de> [02.02.2012 17:20]:
> > > On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 14:45:42 +0100, Uli Armbruster wrote:
> > > > Means, only after refocusing mupdf, it looks fine. It does
On Sun, Feb 05, 2012 at 11:30:03PM +0100, Uli Armbruster wrote:
> * Thomas Dean <78...@web.de> [02.02.2012 17:20]:
> > On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 14:45:42 +0100, Uli Armbruster wrote:
> > > Means, only after refocusing mupdf, it looks fine. It doesn't depend on
> > > this certain pdf file, it happens
