On 6/23/06, Daniel Skorka <daniel.skorka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Please keep this on the list.
> I know that a CVS version doesn't necessary represent a fully-functional
> version. I just wanted to see if my experience was the bug 5057 that was
> already reported (Core fonts don't install if they're found on the
> host<http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5057>)
> or if it was something new.
I don't think you are seeing bug #5057.
I think you're right. I don't have any packages containing the MS fonts.
> I have fontforge installed by RPM. configure (actually tools/wineinstall)
> did warn me about fontforge. On my first attempt, I didn't have it
> installed at all. Now, I see confusing version information reported by rpm
> ...
>
> Version : 0.0
> Release : 0.cvs20050502.2.el4.rf
> Vendor : Dries RPM Repository http://dries.ulyssis.org/rpm/
> Build Date : Mon 11 Jul 2005 02:33:09 PM MYT
>
> So I guess that the packager downloaded fontforge from CVS and built the
> RPM. Is this a problem?
That is not a problem. But your version may be too old. At least your
problem is exactly what happens if your version of fontforge is too old.
I've just downloaded and installed the latest RPM available from fontforge.sourceforge.net and I can still reproduce the problem.
Daniel
_______________________________________________
wine-users mailing list
wine-users@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-users
The creator of bug #5057 reports that the problem occurs because he has a package installed that already includes the MS fonts. It's an unconfirmed bug. I don't have any package including these fonts, but my "C:\Windows\Fonts" directory is still empty. I think I may be experiencing the same issue, but it's not because the fonts are found on the host.
What do you think?
Thank you for your help.
-- Vince
_______________________________________________ wine-users mailing list wine-users@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.winehq.org/mailman/listinfo/wine-users
