sorry that I cant keep the thread when replying because I am reading this list via mail-archive. >Konrad Karl wrote: >> Hi list, >> >> after a fresh FC5 install (mostly everything) and applying all >> updates I seem to be unable to use Luxi Mono in the KDE >> konsole - it is simply not being offered as a choice. > >It happens to me too. I am glad that I am not the only one :-) > >> Googling around did not show anything substantial, the only >> meaningful info I got was something about qt believing that >> one of the four files of the Luxi Mono font family (normal,bold, etc) was >> not considered as fixed width. > >Exactly. The best info I was able to find is this: > http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde&m=110617132115635&w=2 > >> In the KDE control center font installation >> all the Luxi fonts are listed as postscript type 1, however >> they are installed as TTF as well: I have tried uninstalling xorg-x11-fonts-Type1-7.0-3 but this did not help in contrast to your above URL. "did not help" means: did not help in KDE konsole. Gnome terminal was able to use the TTF equivalent but it looked rather ugly (badly hinted or antialised). >> >> xorg-x11-fonts-truetype-7.0-3 /usr/share/X11/fonts/TTF/luximb.ttf etc. >> and >> xorg-x11-fonts-Type1-7.0-3 /usr/share/X11/fonts/Type1/l047013t.pfa etc. > >Apparently deleting the type1 font solves the problem, because the TTF >is seen as monospaced. >I haven't tried yet. > >> at home I am using a machine which has been updated from FC4 (and FC3) >> and did not yet receive the latest FC5 KDE updates. >> On this machine Luxi Mono shows up on the konsole font >> selection dialog just fine. > >Probably something changed in QT. I will make a backup on my home machine and then apply all the latest updates and see what I will get. > >> Really annoying.... >> >> Any hints ane ideas highly welcome. > >Avoiding the Type1 could be a solution. > >I had a look into the type1 files > > /usr/share/X11/fonts/Type1/l047016t.afm > >and > > /usr/share/X11/fonts/Type1/l047036t.afm > >and I saw that some letters have widths=653 instead >of 600. This may indeed be the real reason for this mess. What tool did you use to see the letter widths? > >Maybe this is the reason that invalidates the "monospace" >attribute. I think so as well. Greetings, Konrad > >Best regards. >-- > Roberto Ragusa mail at robertoragusa.it
