Hi, Hans Breuer <Hans@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >That can surely be sorted out. > > > Sure it can. But you are probably developing long enough to know > how long it takes to implement a solution you aren't convinced > of, especially when not getting paid for it ... Before we started to use fontconfig directly, we checked that fontconfig packages for win32 exist. I don't understand what issues you could be having with it. The only thing I can imagine is that you simply don't want to since you are not convinced. > >Bugzilla states are something that can be easily changed. If you don't > >agree with the reslution, feel free to reopen the bug. That is > >something we are doing frequently. > > > When both maintainers have made their decision this appears to be > rather useless ... I don't think so. There are lots of examples where people reopened bugs since they did not agree with Mitch and me. And in some cases we changed our mind. > >It is indeed a long-term goal to allow the user to include all > >resources in the XCF file. BTW, AFAIK webfonts is not a Microsoft > >invention. It is specified as part of CSS2. > > > I didn't mean it as buzz word but was refering to the concrete > true type fonts from them which probably improve most of the > Linux installations. OK, I misunderstood you then. > >Of course we don't want to transform the bitmap. Freetype allows us to > >specify a transformation matrix before the glyphs are rendered to > >bitmaps. This is a feature we absolutely rely on. > > > Some weeks in the future ? Not sure since it would mean moving a lot of code from PangoFT2 to GIMP. If I find the time to do so, yes, I'd like to get it in before the feature freeze. > I don't plan to distribute it. And for a very short time I had the > impression we were discussing the issue. But since your WONTFIX I > have the impression that the usage of (pango)ft2 is already > enscribed in stone. In my opinion we are way too close to feature freeze and release to change the text tool design once more. Actually I'm a bit pissed off since there was a lot of time to bring this issue up. Now that the development cycle ends, you declare that you want things completely different than what we have been doing the last two years. We are trying hard to make gimp-1.3 compatible with win32 even though there is almost null feedback from you and Tor. We have to guess what your prolems are. You didn't even tell us if the latest changes worked. There is almost no communication between the main GIMP developers and the people working with GIMP on Win32. This doesn't give you a good position if you want to change how we implement things. Perhaps we could change that first. Sven
