> It is great that you submitted a patch to Ubuntu, but I think this bug
> is much better filed upstream.
That is true, but as you say carries a risk of loss of portability. As far
as I believe that changes must be made in the deb package.
I do not think that the program authors applied the patch to upstream
because a single operating system that font does not exist.
Also, just based on reading the diff, isn't hardcoding the font path
> into the source a bad idea for portability. Really it should just use
> generic system fonts, but perhaps it is more complicated than that. :)
Frankly, I chose this font because it was the first I saw. I do not know
much about font/O.S. If you know a better font you are free to modify the
patch.
2008/5/1 Andrew Hunter <email address hidden>:
> It is great that you submitted a patch to Ubuntu, but I think this bug
> is much better filed upstream.
That is true, but as you say carries a risk of loss of portability. As far
as I believe that changes must be made in the deb package.
I do not think that the program authors applied the patch to upstream
because a single operating system that font does not exist.
Also, just based on reading the diff, isn't hardcoding the font path
> into the source a bad idea for portability. Really it should just use
> generic system fonts, but perhaps it is more complicated than that. :)
Frankly, I chose this font because it was the first I saw. I do not know
much about font/O.S. If you know a better font you are free to modify the
patch.