Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
Tasklist

FS#36252 - [jre7-openjdk-headless] add fontfix patch

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Gero Müller (geromueller) - Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 08:44 GMT
Last edited by Guillaume ALAUX (galaux) - Friday, 14 November 2014, 14:27 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Packages: Extra
Status Closed
Assigned To Guillaume ALAUX (galaux)
Architecture All
Severity Medium
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 2
Private No

Details

Description:
Please consider adding the fontfix patch. At the moment the fonts in all Java Swing applications are extemely ugly.

Steps to reproduce:
Apply PKGBUILD.diff and add file fontfix.diff
   PKGBUILD.diff (1.5 KiB)
   fontfix.diff (8.6 KiB)
This task depends upon

Closed by  Guillaume ALAUX (galaux)
Friday, 14 November 2014, 14:27 GMT
Reason for closing:  Not a bug
Additional comments about closing:  Use conf explained in wiki to improve fonts but the patch you are talking of belongs to upstream
Comment by Guillaume ALAUX (galaux) - Tuesday, 23 July 2013, 21:15 GMT
This is definitely a patch that should go upstream rather than in Arch packaging. Have you submitted it upstream?
Comment by Gero Müller (geromueller) - Wednesday, 24 July 2013, 05:13 GMT
Hi! No i have not. This patch is floating aroud for some time now:
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/jre7-openjdk-headless-fontfix
https://launchpad.net/~no1wantdthisname/+archive/openjdk-fontfix/
https://gist.github.com/aleksandara/2963640
so i assume it is known to the openjdk people. I will check anyways. In the meantime it would be great to include in in Arch already.
Comment by Guillaume ALAUX (galaux) - Saturday, 27 July 2013, 08:18 GMT
> In the meantime it would be great to include in in Arch already.
Unfortunately this goes against Arch's policy to provide vanilla software and patch only if necessary to package. Upstream is the sane way.
Comment by Gero Müller (geromueller) - Wednesday, 22 October 2014, 16:05 GMT
  • Field changed: Percent Complete (100% → 0%)
version jdk/jre 8 was released and still no changes upstream. PLEASE, add this patch. Fonts are EXTREMLY ugly without this patch. The aur versions do not compile on my system atm, and take very long, especially as there are frequent updates. I love the vanilla approach, but this is a situation where the Arch policy needs to be flexible. Thanks!
Comment by Guillaume ALAUX (galaux) - Sunday, 02 November 2014, 14:44 GMT
This has been discussed over and over again so I definitely don't think re-opening this bug report while there is no news about the issue will help in any way.

Just to be sure we are talking about the same thing: there are actually 2 issues here (which makes it very difficult to discuss this).

First: several (non-DE ?) are known __not__ to use anti-aliasing and I give you that, fonts can thus be ugly on these. For these environments, you need to set anti-aliasing by yourself as explained on the wiki [0]. For instance this is what I get without and with "_JAVA_OPTIONS: -Dawt.useSystemAAFontSettings=on" under i3 WM [1].

Is this the kind of "ugly" you are talking about? Because if yes, then please just set _JAVA_OPTIONS as explained.

Now, I also understand that some fonts look better with this "fontfix" patch as shown by someone on this comment [2]. Have a look at the 2 screenshots on this comment. Is that the kind of "ugly" you are talking about? Because if yes, I definitly don't this this is "EXTREMELY ugly". Yes, with this patch fonts look better… but you are barking at the wrong tree: push upstream to include it because these fonts __are__ readable and totally usable so we are not going to break our policy and include it in Arch Linux.

Lastly, if you have an other case where fonts are really unsuable/'EXTREMELY ugly' even though you setup accordingly to the wiki, then just show me some screenshot and some way to reproduce because all tests I have done on several installs end up with nice fonts" as shown by my screenshot in this post [3].

[0] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Java#Tips_and_tricks
[1] http://imgur.com/UgwmSkM
[2] https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1448519#p1448519
[3] https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1448495#p1448495
Comment by Gero Müller (geromueller) - Sunday, 02 November 2014, 19:04 GMT
Hello Guillaume,

thank you for taking the time to answer! I attached an image, how it looks on my system w/o patch. The fonts are pixelated and after the 'm' of Development there is a gap.

But, i think this is the wrong discussion. It is not the question if it is good enough, for you or me, but that the JRE has a BUG, as in: it doess not recognise the wanted/defined beahvior specified in /etc. This patch fixes this ill behaviour.

And as i stated in the comment above: there seems to be motion upstream to fix this problem.

Gero
   font.png (4.5 KiB)
Comment by Guillaume ALAUX (galaux) - Sunday, 02 November 2014, 19:31 GMT
What is the app on this screenshot?
Comment by Gero Müller (geromueller) - Sunday, 02 November 2014, 19:51 GMT
JabRef. But the same happens with PyCharm and others.
Comment by Guillaume ALAUX (galaux) - Sunday, 02 November 2014, 20:45 GMT
I have just tested both JabRef and PyCharm (this last one on a fresh virtual env) and the both display awesome fonts! See screenshot.

You haven't answered my questions: have you set "_JAVA_OPTIONS" as explained?
   compare2.png (129.2 KiB)
Comment by Gero Müller (geromueller) - Sunday, 02 November 2014, 21:00 GMT
Hi,

i attached a second screenshot with

_JAVA_OPTIONS=-Dawt.useSystemAAFontSettings=on jabref

I think the fonts in your screenshot do NOT look awesome btw, there are many glitches.

But, again: this is not the point, if we like it or not. Java does NOT behave as expexcted: use the system settings. So this is a BUG, not something about taste!

Gero
   fonts2.png (5.8 KiB)
Comment by Guillaume ALAUX (galaux) - Monday, 03 November 2014, 19:24 GMT
Brilliant! Fonts in your screenshot are way better so you are in the first case I described: anti-aliasing was __not__ setup on your system for Java apps. As the wiki says, I would advise you to set this option in your xinitrc or similar.

> I think the fonts in your screenshot do NOT look awesome btw, there are many glitches.
And this is my second point: the fonts on my screenshot are not "EXTREMELY ugly" because I have setup anti-aliasing. As a matter of fact, they are totally readable – I am trying not to pass to much jugement as this is a matter of taste. I give you that patch fontfix improves these fonts: I definitely think this patch has its place… upstream.

Loading...