Red Hat Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
|Summary:||Bad metric in lucidatypewriter font|
|Product:||[Fedora] Fedora||Reporter:||Jan "Yenya" Kasprzak <kas>|
|Component:||xorg-x11-fonts||Assignee:||Mayank Jain <majain>|
|Status:||CLOSED UPSTREAM||QA Contact:|
|Version:||rawhide||CC:||jonstanley, triage, xgl-maint|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2008-04-08 04:22:00 EDT||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
Description Jan "Yenya" Kasprzak 2007-05-14 16:33:45 EDT
Description of problem: The "Numero sign" (U+2116, №) glyph in the LucidaTypewriter font has double width, but its metric says that it is a single-width character. This causes incorrect rendering of the text containing this character in the LucidaTypewriter font. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): I am not sure from which package this font is, but maybe it is from xorg-x11-fonts-100dpi-7.1-2. How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 0. make sure your X11 session runs with the UTF-8 locale 1. run gnome-terminal 2. choose Edit->Current profile from menu 3. clear the checkbox "Use the system terminal font", and set the font to (e.g. "LucidaTypewriter 14" 3. run vim inside the terminal, and input the numero sign and some character directly after it. Actual results: The numero sign is rendered as a double-width character, but because the metric says it is single-width, the adjacent character overwrites part of it. Expected results: Either the numero sign glyph should have a single width (most other monospaced fonts have this), or the metric should be updated to reflect the actual double width of the character. Additional info: I will attach a screenshot of gnome-terminal.
Comment 1 Jan "Yenya" Kasprzak 2007-05-14 16:35:59 EDT
Created attachment 154686 [details] A screenshot of gnome-terminal In this screenshot, the first line contains the numero sign and a "X" character directly after it, the second line has only the numero sign, the third line has three double-width Hiragana characters for comparing, and the fourth line contains digits 1 to 6 as an example of single-width characters.
Comment 2 Matěj Cepl 2007-10-02 17:48:25 EDT
Since this bugzilla report was filed, there have been several updates, which may have resolved this issue. Users who have experienced this problem are encouraged to upgrade their system to the latest version of their distribution available. Please, if you experience this problem on the up-to-date system, let us now in the comment for this bug, or whether the upgraded system works for you. If you won't be able to reply in one month, I will have to close this bug as INSUFFICIENT_DATA. Thank you.
Comment 3 Jan "Yenya" Kasprzak 2007-10-02 18:45:48 EDT
Pardon me, but I consider your comment being quite rude: I _had_ reported a bug on an up-to-date system, yet still for five months there has been no reaction from Fedora maintainers. And then you appear from nowhere, and without even looking at the problem you threaten with closing the case. I would think package maintainers consider bug reports being valuable for them. Some user of their package has not been clueless enough to discard the whole overhyped "Linux" thing after experiencing a bug, but instead took his time writing a bug report, so that future users would not experience the same bug. Maybe you can enlighten a clueless user like me concerning the "several" updates of xorg-x11-fonts-100dpi in FC6. As I can see it from my local Fedora mirror, there has been precisely zero such updates. Is FC6 still a maintained distribution or not? I no longer have a FC6 system with X11 here. FWIW, I have decided to invest even more time into fixing this bug (I really like the LucidaTypewriter font), and verified the problem still exists in F7 (xorg-x11-fonts-100dpi-7.1-3.fc7). Moreover, it is present even in RHEL5 (xorg-x11-fonts-100dpi-7.1-2.1.el5). I have verified the later remotely using following commands: $ gconftool-2 --set /apps/gnome-terminal/profiles/Default/font \ -t string 'LucidaTypewriter 12' $ gconftool-2 --set /apps/gnome-terminal/profiles/Default/use_system_font \ -t bool false $ Xvfb :5 & $ DISPLAY=:5 PS1='â„–XY 123' gnome-terminal & $ xwd -display :5 -root -out x.xwd $ xwud -in x.xwd Feel free to reclassify this bug as RHEL5 if it helps you to justify the time spent with this bug.
Comment 4 Jan "Yenya" Kasprzak 2007-10-02 18:47:01 EDT
Sorry, forgot to change the status back from NEEDINFO
Comment 5 Matěj Cepl 2007-10-03 10:19:08 EDT
DobrÃ½ den, (the rest in English for those fools who don't understand Czech ;-)). I am sorry for this -- you were a victim of mass-changing old bugs to NEEDINFO state to find out whether these bugs are still alive (yes, I should make note about it in the comment, sorry about it). Note, I have never ask you to upgrade to F7 (or RHEL5 for that matter) just to run 'yum upgrade' on your current installation. Now to the current bug. First trying on F7 (because that's my stable working box) and Rawhide, I have found :digraphs command in vim valuable tool for testing. By that I found that metric information for Lucida Typewriter is really for character U+064B and/or the rest of the 064* line. I am not sure why, but although I can reproduce this in the way you described (by typing <Ctrl-K>N0 in the insert mode of vim), I cannot reproduce the same problem for U+2116 in :digraphs. Not sure why. Anyway, this is clearly reproducable bug in Lucida Typewriter fonts.
Comment 6 Matěj Cepl 2007-10-03 10:20:15 EDT
Created attachment 214681 [details] chr(1612) in :digraphs
Comment 7 Matěj Cepl 2007-10-03 10:21:09 EDT
Created attachment 214691 [details] Numeros sign in :digraphs is OK
Comment 8 Matěj Cepl 2007-10-03 10:22:39 EDT
Created attachment 214701 [details] Reproduction of reporter's problem ALl these are from F7, but I was in the same way able to reproduce it on Rawhide, which means that it is probably in every Red Hat distribution (including RHEL, of course).
Comment 9 Matěj Cepl 2007-10-03 10:23:50 EDT
Switching to devel so as not to loose it when the support of FC6 will be discontinued in couple of weeks.
Comment 10 Bug Zapper 2008-04-03 20:41:28 EDT
Based on the date this bug was created, it appears to have been reported against rawhide during the development of a Fedora release that is no longer maintained. In order to refocus our efforts as a project we are flagging all of the open bugs for releases which are no longer maintained. If this bug remains in NEEDINFO thirty (30) days from now, we will automatically close it. If you can reproduce this bug in a maintained Fedora version (7, 8, or rawhide), please change this bug to the respective version and change the status to ASSIGNED. (If you're unable to change the bug's version or status, add a comment to the bug and someone will change it for you.) Thanks for your help, and we apologize again that we haven't handled these issues to this point. The process we're following is outlined here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/F9CleanUp We will be following the process here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping to ensure this doesn't happen again.
Comment 11 Jan "Yenya" Kasprzak 2008-04-04 04:52:53 EDT
Sorry but those automatic bug closures really annoy me. In the above comments there is clearly stated that the bug is present in F7 as well, and was reclassified to "devel" by Matěj Cepl just "in order not to lose it when F6 is EOLd". And yes, this bug is still present in F7, F8, _and_ current rawhide. Please do not attempt to close this bug without a fix in the future :-(
Comment 12 Matěj Cepl 2008-04-04 07:00:28 EDT
Yenyo, sorry for this miscommunication -- of course this bug won't be closed as expired. I was not participating in this last round of NEEDINFOing, and somebody apparently forgot to treat Rawhide bugs differently than Fedora bugs. I am sorry again. Of course, this bug won't be closed just because of lack of communication here (which is probably more than anything else our problem).
Comment 13 Matěj Cepl 2008-04-04 07:15:52 EDT
Well, I promised not to close this bug for being expired, but OTOH I think this should be moved upstream to http://bugs.freedesktop.org -- Jain, what do you think? Should I open upstream bug for this?
Comment 14 Jon Stanley 2008-04-04 09:05:08 EDT
Jan - We apologize for any inconveinence that the cleanup effort may have caused. As you can obviously tell, the process was automated (and will continue to be so in the future). Computers can't read comments, but humans can! Please be assured that this bug won't be expired. You're in good hands with Matej :)
Comment 15 Jan "Yenya" Kasprzak 2008-04-07 04:52:01 EDT
I have tried to report this upstream as http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15381 - hopefully I got the Product and Component name correctly (they are however different than the Fedora package name - perhaps the info about where to report upstream bugs should be included in the RPM package metadata.
Comment 16 Matěj Cepl 2008-04-08 04:22:00 EDT
Thank you for registering the bug upstream. We will continue to track the issue in the centralized upstream bug tracker (and help to fix it), and will review any bug fixes that become available for consideration in future updates. Thank you for the bug report.