[SOLVED] Firefox ugly font rendering

Hello,
straight to the point
Chrome:
http://i.imgur.com/GpjpYqo.png
Firefox:
http://i.imgur.com/PYH7pua.png
This happens only on some websites, and the workarounds found in the wiki articles[1] don't work for me.
I don't know if this is helpful, if you need more information just ask:
ls /etc/fonts/conf.d
10-autohint.conf 20-unhint-small-vera.conf 40-nonlatin.conf 51-local.conf 60-latin.conf 80-delicious.conf
20-unhint-small-dejavu-sans.conf 29-replace-bitmap-fonts.conf 45-latin.conf 57-dejavu-sans.conf 65-fonts-persian.conf 90-synthetic.conf
20-unhint-small-dejavu-sans-mono.conf 30-metric-aliases.conf 49-sansserif.conf 57-dejavu-sans-mono.conf 65-nonlatin.conf README
20-unhint-small-dejavu-serif.conf 30-urw-aliases.conf 50-user.conf 57-dejavu-serif.conf 69-unifont.conf
I don't have any fonts/local.conf nor .fonts.conf in ~.
Someone knows how to troubleshoot/resolve this?
Thanks
[1]
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Firefox
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Firefox_Tweaks
Last edited by tilde (2013-04-17 08:44:32)

brebs wrote:
Looks like you want these fontconfig options, from Infinality's config:
<!-- Prevent Gnome from using embedded bitmaps in fonts like Calibri -->
<match target="font">
<edit name="embeddedbitmap" mode="assign"><bool>false</bool></edit>
</match>
<!-- Reject bitmap fonts in favour of Truetype, Postscript, etc. -->
<match target="font">
<selectfont><rejectfont><pattern>
<patelt name="scalable"><bool>false</bool></patelt>
</pattern></rejectfont></selectfont>
</match>
<!-- Substitute truetype fonts for bitmap ones -->
<match target="font">
<edit name="prefer_outline"><bool>true</bool></edit>
</match>
Thanks for sharing this! Your solution works almost perfectly. However, I get regularly the following terminal output (warning messages):
Fontconfig warning: "local.conf", line 36: No <test> nor <edit> elements in <match>
...which Should be simple to fix. However, forgive me. I'm not very familiar with the code itself. Any quick help is appreciated.
The problematic code string states as follows:
<!-- Reject bitmap fonts in favour of Truetype, Postscript, etc. -->
<match target="font">
<selectfont><rejectfont><pattern>
<patelt name="scalable"><bool>false</bool></patelt>
</pattern></rejectfont></selectfont>
</match>

Similar Messages

  • UGLY font rendering in Firefox

    Hello, my font rendering in Firefox is very ugly. I don't know what to do
    I installed ttf-google-fonts-git and also put 70-no-bitmaps.conf in my /etc/fonts/conf.d/ directory but this doesn't change anything. I reinstalled ttf-google-fonts-git and firefox but nothing.
    Here is what I got : http://f.too.gy/font-rendering.png

    (/etc/fonts/conf.d) Stewie $ ls
    10-powerline-symbols.conf           57-dejavu-sans.conf
    10-scale-bitmap-fonts.conf           57-dejavu-sans-mono.conf
    20-unhint-small-dejavu-sans.conf       57-dejavu-serif.conf
    20-unhint-small-dejavu-sans-mono.conf  60-latin.conf
    20-unhint-small-dejavu-serif.conf      65-fonts-persian.conf
    20-unhint-small-vera.conf           65-nonlatin.conf
    30-metric-aliases.conf               69-unifont.conf
    30-urw-aliases.conf               70-no-bitmaps.conf
    40-nonlatin.conf               75-yes-terminus.conf
    42-luxi-mono.conf               80-delicious.conf
    45-latin.conf                   90-synthetic.conf
    49-sansserif.conf               99pdftoopvp.conf
    50-user.conf                   README
    51-local.conf

  • Ugly fonts rendering with poppler-qt-lcd

    Hello,
    These patches don't work on my system.
    All fonts rendering are beautiful, but pdf documents in okular are ugly.
    I have tried ubuntu cairo patches without effects on this issue.
    I have tried also to change hinting parameters in fontconfig without success.
    Here is screenshots.
    With extra/poppler-qt :
    with aur/poppler-qt-lcd :
    The rendering is worst with poppler-qt-lcd !
    Anybody other has this issue ?
    Thank you

    I'm afraid this is a problem with the Cairo backend; the patches just create a bridge between the Qt bindings and the Cairo backend, and instruct Cairo to use subpixel rendering.  Unfortunately, it doesn't always comply.  Since Cairo 1.10 came out, more documents are affected.  You'll notice the following comment was posted on AUR around the time Cairo 1.10 came out:
    Sadly, it seems an increasing number of documents are not properly subpixel-rendered in the Cairo backend, even with these patches. I'm afraid that issue is for other people with more understanding of Cairo internals to solve. (See here: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3307 ).

  • Firefox-bin font rendering

    If I use any of the firefox-bin packages in aur, or mozilla's official tar the font rendering is just terrible and doesn't folow my system at all. Is there anyway to make these versions of firefox render fonts properly?

    The Firefox aurora and beta AUR packages use binary packages so Firefox is compiled differently than the default Arch packages. iirc, XULRunner is responsible for the font rendering. You would want to compile it to use the system's cairo library.

  • Firefox/Thunderbird Font Rendering changed after upgrade of xulrunner

    Hi guys,
    I experienced a problem with font rendering in the mentioned applications after upgrading xulrunner from 1.9.2.10-1 to 1.9.2.10-2 today. It seems like font smoothing/subpixel rendering does not work as before. After downgrading to 1.9.2.10-1, it worked as expected again.
    To make it more clearly, here is a comparison shot of the two different renderings. The top one is before, the bottom one after the upgrade. You can see that the font at the top is rendered more smoothly.
    And here is a difference image:
    Is anything known about changes which could cause this?
    <edit>I have to correct this. The rendering in thunderbird was obviously not changed by the xulrunner upgrade, but by a separate thunderbird upgrade from 3.1.4-1 to 3.1.4-2.
    <edit2>Additional information: I have the cleartype versions of freetype2, cairo and libxft installed, if that matters.
    Last edited by Singul (2010-09-28 16:40:18)

    Although I am empathetic to the hard (and really great) job the arch devs do, I want to voice my overall agreement with softtower on this issue. Fonts have been an off and on problem for me with arch since the beginning. I understand the devs are doing the best they can, especially when the actual problem is with the moz. devs. But fonts are the major way most users interact with the system, and I can tell you that almost nothing is more aggravating, to me at least, to suddenly "upgrade" and get presented with those really crappy fonts out of the blue. Just saying I understand the frustration, and I think he makes some good points about shipping broken packages and "blaming" it on upstream. If they're broken - don't use them! if possible. "Progress" that breaks stuff isn't really progress, imo.
    hokasch wrote:
    Don't quite get what the fuzz is all about, my fonts look as crisp as ever (on a laptop lcd), the update changed absolutely nothing for me. I never used "fixed" versions of anything, can't really remember how I set up the fonts when I did this installation though (font config advice on the wiki I guess).
    It is not the repo's maintainers job to keep packages synced up with any "fixed" packages in AUR, that is your own responsibility, and bitching about it won't help you any.
    Just pointing out that comments like these aren't really helpful, imho. So you didn't have the problem - that's good to know, but the "fuzz" is about the fact that some of us *DO* have the problem.
    It typically doesn't show up on laptops, btw, only standalone LCDs for some reason (has always been the case for me, at least, with both LCDs and laptops, where the laptop never had the problem). So again, the fuss is that a major usability function got broken from an upgrade that shouldn't get broken, and imo it raises some good, if admittedly difficult to resolve, points, philosophical points, etc. about the packaging and upgrade process,

  • [SOLVED] Incorrect / Ugly Fonts in Epiphany Web Browser

    Hello everyone. I've done a ton of a searching (here and google) on this subject to no avail. It seems fonts on Facebook / Tumblr as well as some other sites have very incorrectly rendered fonts.
    I am currently using the freetype2-ubuntu patch and I have the ttf-win8 fonts installed as well. I also have the google fonts package installed.
    Here are some screenshots of what I am seeing.
    http://i.imgur.com/Ecem4HH.png
    http://i.imgur.com/bJqL82J.png
    Any input on this? Has anyone else experienced this?
    -- mod edit: read the Forum Etiquette and only post thumbnails http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/For … s_and_Code [jwr] --
    Last edited by jmanes (2015-01-18 08:29:16)

    Hello everyone. I solved the issue myself.
    It turns out that installing infinality from AUR was NOT a good idea. After doing a proper install using the pacman key and adding it to pacman.conf I now have beautiful fonts. Thanks for the responses!

  • Ugly font rendering in chromium 5.0.375.

    Hi!,
    The last update to  chromim 5.0.375,  the rendering fonts is too ugly, so I have to down to the previus version of package 5.0.342.
    I probe settins de .Xdefaults system, but ignore me.  Is anyone occur this issue ?.
    I've a X64 System.
    thanks in advance !!

    alexk wrote:
    edtler wrote:The last update to  chromim 5.0.375,  the rendering fonts is too ugly, so I have to down to the previus version of package 5.0.342.
    I probe settins de .Xdefaults system, but ignore me.  Is anyone occur this issue ?.
    I have the same problem. Rolling back to 5.0.342 fixes it.
    fsckd wrote:Maybe: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=98189
    It looks like a different issue.
    Could u please provide old package v5.0.342?

  • [NEARLY SOLVED] font rendering in gtk apps problem after last upgrade

    Im' using KDE, cairo-lcd, libxft-lcd... my fonts looked beautifully, but now they look horrible...
    After last upgrade my gtk apps (firefox, thunderbird) render fonts in an ugly way...
    I've tried to revert to pango 1.16.5 with no lucky result (the same problem)...
    here is the log:
    [2007-08-19 14:56] upgraded bind (9.4.1_P1-2 -> 9.4.1_P1-3)
    [2007-08-19 14:56] upgraded glib2 (2.14.0-2 -> 2.14.0-3)
    [2007-08-19 14:56] upgraded gnupg2 (2.0.5-1 -> 2.0.6-1)
    [2007-08-19 14:57] upgraded gtk2 (2.10.14-2 -> 2.10.14-3)
    [2007-08-19 14:57] upgraded kernel26ck (2.6.22.2.ck1-1 -> 2.6.22.3.ck1-1)
    [2007-08-19 14:57] upgraded libdownload (1.1-1 -> 1.1-2)
    [2007-08-19 14:57] upgraded libevent (1.3b-1 -> 1.3d-1)
    [2007-08-19 14:57] upgraded libxtst (1.0.2-1 -> 1.0.3-1)
    [2007-08-19 14:57] upgraded nvidia-ck (100.14.11-2 -> 100.14.11-3)
    [2007-08-19 14:57] upgraded sip (4.6-1 -> 4.7-1)
    [2007-08-19 14:57] upgraded pyqt (3.17.2-1 -> 3.17.3-1)
    [2007-08-19 14:57] upgraded xf86-input-joystick (1.2.2-1 -> 1.2.3-1)
    [2007-08-19 14:57] upgraded xorg-server-utils (1.0.4-1 -> 1.0.4-2)
    [2007-08-19 14:57] upgraded xorg-utils (1.0.2-2 -> 1.0.2-4)
    [2007-08-19 14:57] upgraded xorg-xdm (1.1.5-1 -> 1.1.6-1)
    [2007-08-19 14:57] upgraded xterm (225-1 -> 229-1)
    [2007-08-21 00:16] upgraded cpio (2.8-1 -> 2.9-1)
    [2007-08-21 00:16] upgraded ed (0.5-3 -> 0.8-1)
    [2007-08-21 00:16] upgraded initscripts (2007.08-1 -> 2007.08-2)
    [2007-08-21 00:16] upgraded intltool (0.36.0-1 -> 0.36.1-1)
    [2007-08-21 00:16] upgraded libarchive (2.2.5-1 -> 2.2.6-1)
    [2007-08-21 00:16] upgraded man-pages (2.60-1 -> 2.64-1)
    [2007-08-21 00:16] upgraded pciutils (2.2.4-2 -> 2.2.6-1)
    [2007-08-21 00:16] upgraded readline (5.2-2 -> 5.2-3)
    [2007-08-22 00:16] upgraded gdbm (1.8.3-3 -> 1.8.3-4)
    [2007-08-22 00:17] upgraded kernel26 (2.6.22.3-1 -> 2.6.22.4-2)
    [2007-08-22 00:17] upgraded lcms (1.16-1 -> 1.17-1)
    [2007-08-22 00:17] upgraded libice (1.0.2-1 -> 1.0.4-1)
    [2007-08-22 00:17] upgraded libxrender (0.9.2-1 -> 0.9.3-1)
    [2007-08-22 00:17] upgraded procinfo (18-3 -> 19-1)
    [2007-08-22 00:17] upgraded xorg-apps (1.0.2-4 -> 1.0.3-1)
    [2007-08-22 23:49] upgraded kernel26 (2.6.22.4-2 -> 2.6.22.4-2.1)
    [2007-08-22 23:49] upgraded librsvg (2.18.0-1 -> 2.18.1-1)
    [2007-08-22 23:49] upgraded libxpm (3.5.6-1 -> 3.5.7-1)
    [2007-08-22 23:49] upgraded libxaw (1.0.3-1 -> 1.0.4-1)
    [2007-08-22 23:49] upgraded makedev (3.8.3-1 -> 3.23-1)
    [2007-08-22 23:49] upgraded mcpp (2.6-1 -> 2.6.4-1)
    [2007-08-22 23:49] upgraded naim (0.11.8.2.1-1 -> 0.11.8.3.1-1)
    [2007-08-22 23:49] upgraded nfs-utils (1.0.12-2 -> 1.0.12-3)
    [2007-08-22 23:49] upgraded pam (0.81-4 -> 0.99.8.1-3.1)
    [2007-08-22 23:49] upgraded pango (1.16.5-1 -> 1.18.0-1)
    [2007-08-22 23:49] upgraded sox (13.0.0-1 -> 13.0.0-2)
    [2007-08-22 23:49] upgraded xorg-apps (1.0.3-1 -> 1.0.3-2)
    [2007-08-22 23:49] upgraded xtrans (1.0.3-1 -> 1.0.4-1)
    [2007-08-25 15:25] upgraded glibc (2.6.1-1 -> 2.6.1-2)
    [2007-08-25 15:25] upgraded bftpd (1.9-1 -> 2.0-1)
    [2007-08-25 15:25] upgraded gcc (4.2.1-3 -> 4.2.1-3.1)
    [2007-08-25 15:25] upgraded gtk-doc (1.8-2 -> 1.8-3)
    [2007-08-25 15:25] upgraded hal-info (0.20070618-1 -> 0.20070725-1)
    [2007-08-25 15:25] upgraded perl-xml-simple (2.16-2 -> 2.18-1)
    [2007-08-25 15:25] upgraded icon-naming-utils (0.8.2-2 -> 0.8.5-1)
    [2007-08-25 15:26] upgraded kernel26 (2.6.22.4-2.1 -> 2.6.22.5-1)
    [2007-08-25 15:27] upgraded kernel26ck (2.6.22.3.ck1-1 -> 2.6.22.5.ck1-1)
    [2007-08-25 15:27] upgraded libgnomeprint (2.18.0-1 -> 2.18.1-1)
    [2007-08-25 22:41] removed libgnomeprintui (2.18.0-1)
    [2007-08-25 22:41] removed libgnomeprint (2.18.1-1)
    i dunno what happened...
    plz, someone help me
    regards
    Last edited by saneone (2007-08-30 18:11:32)

    Bogart wrote:
    I think the spacing now is correct, while before it was wrong. The only "problem" is that you got used to a bad font rendering, and now that it has changed for better you feel like it's different and don't like it.
    Really, *most* of the problems that people find in Linux's fonts are just because they are used to the awful default fonts from Windows XP. Yes, people can even get used to those fonts and believe they're good!!! And when they see correct fonts in Linux they think they're bad...
    What I would do is remove the MS TTF fonts. They work bad in Windows and worse in Linux. You should use Bitstream Vera or DejaVu if you want good quality fonts (especially in web pages).
    But, then again, you might think that they look wrong just because you're not used to it... Oh, well...
    What does correct font / correct spacing mean ?
    IMO, that doesn't make any sense, because that's a totally subjective matter, like many other things in this world.
    BTW, I love how fonts look in Windows, and I think that must be the only thing MS got right. Thus, I'm using ms fonts in linux, and a rendering as close as possible (no autohinting or antialiasing or subpixel rendering).
    Similarly, I could find a woman beautiful that you would find ugly or just average. We are all different, and it's better that way

  • [SOLVED] Different font rendering in two accounts/users...

    Hi!
    I have this slight problem of fonts. The rendering of font in one account from another is somehow different (or is it just my eyes? ). Anyways, here's a screenshot of my terminal and firefox. Fonts are similar for both:
    Account 1 (I was thinking how to apply this same setting to the other account):
    Terminal:
    Firefox:
    Account 2 (has blurry fonts):
    Terminal:
    Firefox:
    For the configurations, I don't think I have a ~/.fonts.conf on both users. For the terminal, I only have the settings that is found on http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Xde … t_Settings. For the terminal, I think it's just my eyes Kindly let me know if you think the same way too.
    Any help appreciated.
    Thanks!
    Last edited by dsdeiz (2010-09-22 05:57:45)

    Hi again,
    Check the font config in your window manager (xfce, kde, gnome, etc.).
    I have openbox. Not entirely sure where is it's font configurations. I checked rc.xml and ran obconf. I searched for the word "alias" but haven't found any. I also tried creating a new user and ran icewm on it though Firefox still looked the same.
    Looks like the second firefox picture has subpixel antialiasing on, not the first.
    I also tried the font configuration found here.
    Thanks for the help.
    Last edited by dsdeiz (2010-09-19 02:10:49)

  • [SOLVED] Firefox and bad fonts

    I would like to start using Firefox and its excellent plugins, but the only thing that prevents me are the fonts. They seem plain evil!
    They are fuzzy and somehow too large and CTRL++ or CTRL+- won't help with the look. Take a loot at these:
    Firefox: fonts are fuzzy and some characters are looking like painted - see the copyright sign for example! :evil: Also the distance between different characters in a word doesnt seem to be equal all the times and that makes it hard to grasp the word.
    Mozilla Suite: crisp and clear
    I think it is somehow xft - related, because I downloaded the standard Mozilla suite build and it also had these awful fonts and then tried the non-xft build and fonts were ok. In Appearance-Fonts they are described as Serif -> adobe-times-iso8859-1, Sans-serif -> adobe-helvetica-iso8859-1 and so on. How could I get these fonts appear in Firefox, too?
    I have tried to compile Firefox myself with disable-xft option, but it fails with an error about gtk not being found in pkgconfig path.

    What you call "crisp", I just call "aliased". The fonts in Opera are also aliased, which makes them look poor. Your Firefox's fonts look nice, except the fact that the autohinter is making them look sloppy. Comment that part out and see how it looks.
    <?xml version="1.0"?>
    <!DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM "fonts.dtd">
    <!-- /etc/fonts/local.conf file for local customizations -->
    <fontconfig>
    <!--Use the Auto-Hinter-->
    <!--<match target="pattern">
    <edit name="autohint" mode="assign">
    <bool>true</bool>
    </edit>
    </match>-->
    <!--
    Disable anti-aliasing for fonts that are size <=12
    <match target="pattern">
    <test qual="any" name="size" compare="less_eq">
    <int>12</int>
    </test>
    <edit name="antialias" mode="assign"><bool>false</bool></edit>
    </match>
    -->
    <!--
    Enable sub-pixel rendering
    <match target="font">
    <test qual="all" name="rgba">
    <const>unknown</const>
    </test>
    <edit name="rgba" mode="assign"><const>rgb</const></edit>
    </match>
    -->
    </fontconfig>
    Cheers.

  • [SOLVED] Font rendering doesn't work as expected on github

    Hey!
    I have a problem with the font rendering on github. On Windows it looks normal, but on Arch it looks a bit bold.
    Here a comparison picture how it looks on my arch desktop and on my windows desktop:
    So, how can I solve this problem?
    Thanks in advance!
    Last edited by sh4nks (2014-01-10 15:33:39)

    As per bohoomil's recommendation, I created and installed the ttf-ms-win8 font package.  At some point, I had an issue with libreoffice actually not actually showing any fonts at all.  After much browsing, I found others who reported the same thing and that the removal of the ms fonts solved the issue (it turned out to be segoe I think).  In the mean time, I tried using the google fonts (ttf-google-fonts-git) and was quite pleased with them… until I navigated to the github page, which was awful.  So in the end, I resintalled the ttf-ms-win8 font package, as the free fonts were apparently insufficient.
    So the point of this story is that although I think you can "fix" things to a degree by modifying the font configurations, this is actually a simple case of not having the available font on one's system (and github defaulting to something crappy, as mentioned by nfisher.sr above). 
    Take this story/post with a pinch of salt though, as I simply put my font configuration needs in the hands of the amazingly capable bohoomil and his infinality-bundle.  I just do what he tells me to do, and my fonts look amazing.

  • Fonts rendering incorrectly since update to Firefox 13.0.1

    Since I updated to Firefox 13.0.1, any website using the Helvetica Neue font is rendering an outline font instead. I do have this font installed on my computer, and cannot uninstall it as I am a graphic designer and I use it all the time. Any change we can get a fix on this?
    I just pasted one example, but even this page is doing it: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/new/desktop/d1/form?search=Fonts+rendering+incorrectly+since+update+to+Firefox+13.0.1. I also know Pinterest does it.

    There may be a problem with the Helvetica Neue font if Firefox is using another font instead.
    You can do a font test to see if you can identify corrupted font(s).
    *http://browserspy.dk/fonts-flash.php?detail=1
    You can use this extension to see which fonts are used for selected text.
    *fontinfo: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/fontinfo/

  • [SOLVED] Bad font rendering and overlapping since last update

    Hi all! Since the last updates I'm getting font rendering problems. I'm seeing something like this in lots of applications:
    See the "ce" in Facebook, those letters are kinda overlapped! This happens in Nautilus too, for example in the word "devel". I'm using the Ubuntu patches for font rendering, but actually I have problems even with the stock packages.
    I'm on a fresh install right now (I really needed to clean the old one, too much experimenting xD) and I keep having this problem.
    Can anyone help me?
    SOLVED I downgraded pango from 1.32.1-1 to 1.30.1-1 and everything went back to normality
    Last edited by Gianfrix (2012-11-06 14:09:00)

    brebs wrote:https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/32612?project=1
    That seems to be an issue. Downgrading to  xorg-server 1.13.0-3 resolved problem. Watching ticket for future updates. Thanks a lot
    Last edited by mamciek (2012-11-20 22:02:58)

  • Weird font rendering glitch in firefox

    Hi all,
    When I look at this webpage in Firefox this is what I get:
    Notice how every occurrence of "ff" and "ft" look weird.
    This is Mozilla Firefox 13.0.1.
    System & Xorg info:
    knarf ~ > Xorg -version
    X.Org X Server 1.12.3
    Release Date: 2012-07-09
    X Protocol Version 11, Revision 0
    Build Operating System: Linux 3.4.4-3-ARCH x86_64
    Current Operating System: Linux paf 3.4.4-3-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Tue Jul 3 14:36:44 UTC 2012 x86_64
    Kernel command line: root=/dev/sda3 ro
    Build Date: 09 July 2012 03:59:39PM
    Current version of pixman: 0.26.2
    Before reporting problems, check http://wiki.x.org
    to make sure that you have the latest version.
    Font-related installed packages:
    knarf ~ > pacman -Qs ttf
    local/ttf-dejavu 2.33-3
    Font family based on the Bitstream Vera Fonts with a wider range of characters
    local/ttf-freefont 20120503-1
    Set of free outline fonts covering the Unicode character set
    knarf ~ > pacman -Qs font
    local/fontconfig 2.8.0-2
    A library for configuring and customizing font access
    local/fontforge 20120119-1
    Outline and bitmap font editor
    local/fontsproto 2.1.2-1
    X11 font extension wire protocol
    local/freetype2 2.4.10-1
    TrueType font rendering library
    local/libfontenc 1.1.1-1
    X11 font encoding library
    local/libxfont 1.4.5-1
    X11 font rasterisation library
    local/libxft 2.3.1-1
    FreeType-based font drawing library for X
    local/ttf-dejavu 2.33-3
    Font family based on the Bitstream Vera Fonts with a wider range of characters
    local/ttf-freefont 20120503-1
    Set of free outline fonts covering the Unicode character set
    local/xorg-bdftopcf 1.0.3-2 (xorg xorg-apps)
    Convert X font from Bitmap Distribution Format to Portable Compiled Format
    local/xorg-font-util 1.3.0-1 (xorg-fonts xorg)
    X.Org font utilities
    local/xorg-font-utils 7.6-3
    Transitional package depending on xorg font utilities
    local/xorg-fonts-alias 1.0.2-2
    X.org font alias files
    local/xorg-fonts-encodings 1.0.4-3 (xorg-fonts xorg)
    X.org font encoding files
    local/xorg-fonts-misc 1.0.1-2
    X.org misc fonts
    local/xorg-mkfontdir 1.0.7-1 (xorg xorg-apps)
    Create an index of X font files in a directory
    local/xorg-mkfontscale 1.1.0-1 (xorg-apps xorg)
    Create an index of scalable font files for X

    ewaller wrote:It is interesting to note those combinations are typographic ligatures.  I'll bet two credits that is not a coincidence.
    I bet my credits the fault is within the Calibri font.
    You can do a font substitution for Calibri.  I made the change for all users.  Before anyone does this they might check, from the command line, what font is being used for Calibri:  'fc-match Calibri'
    In /etc/fonts/conf.avail/ I added the file, 39-no-calibri.conf:
    <?xml version="1.0"?>
    <!DOCTYPE fontconfig SYSTEM "fonts.dtd">
    <fontconfig>
    <!-- Replace Calibri with generic fonts
    bad ligatures in Calibri -->
    <match target="pattern" name="family">
    <test name="family" qual="any">
    <string>Calibri</string>
    </test>
    <edit mode="assign" name="family">
    <string>Arial</string>
    <string>Liberation Sans</string>
    <string>sans-serif</string>
    </edit>
    </match>
    </fontconfig>
    Then I symlinked to it from /etc/fonts/conf.d/:
    # pwd
    /etc/fonts/conf.d
    # ln -s /etc/fonts/conf.avail/39-no-calibri.conf
    Finally, I updated the font cache with 'fc-cache -vf'.

  • [Solved, install dejavu font] Libre Office fonts are rendered as boxes

    Been a while since I've posted and thank you in advance for any help offered.
    My issue is pretty straight forward:  all my menus and fonts in Libre Office Writer show up as boxes instead of letters.  I have searched the wiki and forums for a solution but most people who have this problem fix the issue by installing the right language pack. 
    As you can see below that isn't my issue:
    local/libreoffice-common 4.1.4-3 (libreoffice)
    common files for LibreOffice - a productivity suite that is compatible with other major office suites
    local/libreoffice-en-US 4.1.4-3
    English (US) language pack for LibreOffice
    local/libreoffice-writer 4.1.4-3 (libreoffice)
    Word Processor Application for LibreOffice.
    I have no plug-ins installed apart from hunspell, mythes and hyphenation.  I removed these packages but there was no change.
    This machine is a Dell laptop with the Intel video chip and thus I have the correct driver installed and everything else works fine:
    :root: ~ : pacman -Qs intel
    local/intel-dri 10.0.2-1
    Mesa drivers for Intel
    local/xf86-video-intel 2.99.907-2 (xorg-drivers xorg)
    X.org Intel i810/i830/i915/945G/G965+ video drivers
    I tried nuking my Libre Office directory in my home directory but that yielded no change.  My .gtk-* directories don't contain anything specific to LO. 
    These are the only fonts I've added to this install (thanks boohoomil) and are not customised in any way:
    local/cairo-infinality-ultimate 1.12.16-3 (infinality-bundle)
    Cairo vector graphics library with respect-fontconfig, expose and Ubuntu patches (infinality-bundle)
    local/fontconfig-infinality-ultimate 2.11.0-15 (infinality-bundle)
    A library for configuring and customizing font access (includes generic fontconfig package and ultimate settings by bohoomil).
    local/freetype2-infinality-ultimate 2.5.2-3 (infinality-bundle)
    TrueType font rendering library with Infinality patches and custom settings by bohoomil (infinality-bundle).
    I have gone so far as to try snapwm and Xfce4 but there is no difference in the font rendering in LO.
    I'm stymied about this because I have used this setup previously on this and two other machines.  Any ideas?
    MS
    Last edited by MoonSwan (2014-02-03 04:54:16)

    I thought of that but, as I use the infinality-bundle, which fonts do I need to test this hypothesis?  Or can you suggest one I can install from the official repos?
    [edit]  Just after posting this I remembered that LO, as noted on the wiki somewhere, suggest one install the ttf-dejavu font.  After installing this font everything is now showing correctly. 
    @nomorewindows, Thank you very much!  I feel a bit silly but I learned something from this and for that I grateful to you. 
    Last edited by MoonSwan (2014-02-03 00:14:13)

Maybe you are looking for

  • Help me to solve this

    I can't view My JSP file I am getting Error Message Java Compile not Found Unable to Compile the Source file for JSP I copied tools.jar to servers lib dir But Yet i get the same message Pls help me to Solve this Problem

  • Problems setting up RAID on a Mac Pro 2.1 using all 4 drive bays

    Hi, I'm trying to repurpose my Mac pro as a network storage device and have bought 4 x 3TB WD Red drives so I can use it as 6TB of storage that is mirrored. I'm running into several problems and could do with a bit of advice. I have tried booting fro

  • Reg: print options and sending mail in smartfomrs

    Hi Guys, I have a requirement on msartfomrs i need to give to print option and it goes to printer and and sending as attachment in PDF  to mail using SO_NEW_DOCUMENT_ATT_SEND_API1 function can any body send the sample code.

  • Where do I get new Hard Drive???

    I currently have 160gb but would like to upgrade, I have read my system can only handle up to 500gb. I can not seem to find anywhere to buy it so that I can add it myself? is ultimately the price will be the determining factor What is the story with

  • GarageBand turns my guitar down

    GB11 noob here. This is my first project and I've run into a problem. Recording a guitar track direct from my POD HD500 (guitar -> pedal board -> irig -> computer's headphone port). Initial attack sounds awesome! But after about 5 seconds of playing,