[Bug 238482] x11-fonts/fontconfig: Firefox print pre-formatting is HORRIBLE ("bitmap font by default")

[bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org]

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=238482

--- Comment #18 from Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg-freebsd at tristatelogic.com> ---
Just a few final words and then I don't think I'll have anything else of value
to add regarding this problem/issue.

First, my own system is behaving very well, now that I've found and applied the
magic incantation to make it work properly:

cd /usr/local/etc/fonts/conf.d && ln -s ../conf.avail/70-no-bitmaps.conf

My only point is that I have not opened and then reopened this PR just for
myself alone.  *My* system is working great now, and it will continue to do so,
I'm sure, until my next "upgrade".  Rather, I believed, and still believe, that
a majority of FreeBSD users would be well served by not having to get down and
grovel around in obscure font files, just in order to do something really
simple and obvious like printing from a browser.  Others are, of course,
entitled to hold different views and opinions on this point.

The only other thing I feel is worth noting is that, going by the public
record, the original author of PR 255744 decided, in the end, to withdraw his
proposed changes, apparently NOT because he HAD actually seen ill effects but
only because, as he noted "it could be a big impact to many applications". 
This is quite obviously only informed speculation, as opposed to hard evidence.
 On the other hand, there is clear evidence that the enabling of bitmapped
fonts, by default, causes multiple/numerous actual user problems.

Given the clear opposition to any change from the existing defaults, I would
like to merely close by suggesting that, at a minimum, it would be appropriate,
I think, to include the command line shown above, which fixes the problem,
along with some minimal comments explaining why and when it might be useful, in
the folliowing three places, so that no users for whom it may be of value would
be likely to miss it:

*) Near the top of Section 5.5.1 of the Handbook.

*) Somewhere in Section 6.2.1 (Firefox) of the Handbook.

*) In the notices that are given at the end of the install process when doing
"pkg install firefox" from the command line.

This would be a reasonable outcome, in my opinion.

I don't believe that I have anything further of value to say on this issue.  I
will just note, in response to the immediately prior comment, that no, I have
not been using ports.  I am only been using packages.  (I would supply the
additional data requested, but doing so would seem to just be a waste of
everyone's time at this point, so I'll pass on that.)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.