src/rxvtfont.C ascent/descent and g.xOff patch

[clutton]

On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 21:08 +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 06:35:55PM +0200, clutton <clutton at zoho.com> wrote:
> > > What is your question? "How can I make a proprtional font look good in a
> > > terminal?" - I don't think anybody has an answer to that.
> > > 
> > 
> > every terminal emulator I'd used shows proportional fonts in appropriate
> > manner, except urxvt.
> 
> I disagree, but "appropriate" is not a constructive term anyways.

Call it wherever you want.
http://i1.someimage.com/I5wLFQb.png
http://i1.someimage.com/nF9wFbG.png

> 
> > The question rather is «why FAQ doesn't have explanation, to what I'm
> > observing».
> 
> How about not ignoring the two mails I sent?

I do not ignore them. It'll take a time to compare urxvt rendering
approach and others, say gvim, or mate-terminal. I just have nothing to
answer yet.

> 
> > Arch Linux already has patched version in aur.
> > https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Rxvt-unicode#Installation
> 
> The license permits this - I will have to add an entry to the FAQ that
> arch linux breaks urxvt and is not supported then.

An Arch Linux repository has the normal urxvt, but unofficial repository
a «AUR» has also the patched version. Usually the Arch Linux put
unofficial things to the «AUR», of course users aware that the name:
«rxvt-unicode-patched 9.19-1» means with some patches (unofficial).

Arch Linux users would kill for your ignorance. Just kidding ;)

Don't put the Arch Linux in black list because of their unofficial
repository.


> > And we were thinking to include this patch into urxvt FreeBSD port as an
> > optional feature
> > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=185656
> 
> It makes no sense to include a patch that is already known to be broken as
> an "optional feature", but I am not responsible for the quality of freebsd
> (which isn't being improved by even more breakage, not that there wouldn't
> be enough problems already). The license certainly permits modifications,
> but likewise we can't support such broken versions and would recommend
> users to not use the freebsd version.

Please do read the pr before that conclusion: it was going to be an
option, which is off by default.

> > But, ok. Speak is cheap, show me the code :). I'll try to do some
> > codding help.
> 
> Again, you are really wasting my time by ignoring my mails: I wrote a
> detailed mail to you that explains the issues (which are NOT lack of
> coding). If you still think this is a question of coding feel free, I
> don't care, but don't bother me with it.

Ok. I wouldn't.

> I must admit it's a bit frustrating to give detailed explanations of the
> problems and then get ignored completely with bullshit comments like
> "appropriateness" of font rendering. You are clearly not interested in a
> constructive discussion.

Let say I'm looking at your explanation as my boss did when I was
explaining why it worked in that way.

I wouldn't bother you more with questions unless I'll succeed.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 834 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.schmorp.de/pipermail/rxvt-unicode/attachments/20140125/5a54e282/attachment.sig>