From: Dom Lachowicz (doml@appligent.com)
Date: Tue Oct 01 2002 - 22:41:56 EDT
> I wonder if they've done their own hack to "fix" the
> AbiWord fonts in 8.0? Anyone got 8.0 yet?
> (I'd love it if somebody has a CD burner and an
> airmail stamp) </begging>
I have (null) which is the final beta before the 8.0 release. They don't
do anything to "fix" the AbiWord fonts. I'll see if I can get 8.0 to you
after I download it. Martin almost has the ISOs down, so maybe you could
convince him to burn a copy and mail it cross-country/continent to you.
> > The best retort we can come up with is to post the
> > 1.1.1 release this Friday with yummy Xft goodness.
>
> Is this 1.1.1 based on STABLE with Xft? The new
> with-tables HEAD-based stuff will be 2.x.x right?
1.1.1 is not based on STABLE, that would be 1.0.4. CVS HEAD (complete
with tables and the 100 new "not-tables" things in it) will become 1.1.1
in about 68 hours. CVS HEAD (and thusly, 1.1.1) is Xft capable.
Eventually (hopefully February-ish) this will become "STABLE" and 2.0.0
(aka "AbiWord 2: The Wrath of Dom") will be released into the wild.
> By the way, I've reopened the numlock problem she
> mentions. Anyone seen this lately? Is RedHat known
> to patch AbiWord at all?
I just fixed this. Again. Silly GTK/GDK going to 32 bit unicode keysym
values instead of 16 bit ones...
RedHat and the other distros are known to marginally patch AbiWord. Most
do it so that we use their system-wide installed dictionaries, which is
partly why I think any more work on our part recognizing rogue ispell
hashes won't exactly be appealing to the masses, so to speak.
Cheers,
Dom
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Oct 01 2002 - 22:46:27 EDT