On Tue, 20 Jul 2010, Frank Cox wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 06:24 -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
>> While this may induce a reluctance to change matters too
>> much, a closer to the 'leaf node' package such as freetype may
>> be 'doable' if you ask, and as I recall, RFE it in their
>> Bugzilla;
> Upon checking the redhat bugzilla, I found that this issue has already
> been posted under the Fedora category:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612395
Reading that and the companion mentioned in the last comment,
my takeaway is that fonts in fedora are (or were) bad [I trust
m miller's judgment here, and have for a long time, as he is
a thoughtful analyst], and that there is not much urgency
in making the issue better. As I don't have the strength to
follow that churn and the traffic in various venue that fedora
folk use, I conclude without knowing of some un-Bugzillaed
side discussion: it's not ready yet
Additionally, I see mention of ghostscript, and don't they
have (or had) something like a no FOSS release until after a
one year timeout from their stable releases. Time and memory
may be playing tricks on me here
Finally, being filed in RawHide and in Fedora [note that
no-one cared to uplift those bugs into the F14 product] is NOT
going to get an RFE for RHEL 6 examined and decided, and if
accepted, slotted for stabilization testing and documentation.
File the bug on that product [rhel 6/beta] as well, and
explain why it would be the right thing to do, and what the
needed fix are, (preferably with patches), and why taht is a
low risk, high gain decision, and it will flow into CentOS
faster ;)
-- Russ herrold
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
