Eric Firing <efiring@...229...> writes:
However, I have run nosetests on a build of master on Ubuntu 10.10, with
freetype 2.4.2, and I see the same failure that you showed on the
font_styles test. Same test on a build of v1.0.x, same failure. Fails
for png and svg; passes for pdf, but the images being compared are ugly
low-res bitmapped things.
The pdf comparison is designed that way: the baseline image and the test
result are rendered at test time with ghostscript without antialiasing,
and while it looks ugly it's both pretty fast and a good comparison,
since the files are rendered by exactly the same version of ghostscript
with the same settings. It's not surprising that the pdf tests pass,
since freetype is used only for finding some font information that needs
to be output into the pdf file, and all font rendering is done by the
pdf engine of the end user.
The major change between the freetype 2.3 series and 2.4 seems to be "In
addition to many bugfixes, the TrueType bytecode interpreter is now
enabled by default. All users should upgrade."
It could be that we have inadvertently relied on bugs, or that truetype
hints cause differences that big.
Jouni K. Sepp�nen