Re: [pygame] BUG: Inconsistent font behavior between Windows and Linux

["Charlie Nolan" <funnyman3595@xxxxxxxxx>]

So, anything else you want me to poke at, or is someone going to take
a look?  For that matter, have you guys been able to duplicate the
problem?

-FM

On 8/23/08, Charlie Nolan <funnyman3595@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It was at 2.3.7.  I downgraded it to 2.3.5 temporarily, and it shows
> the same results as 2.3.7.
>
> -FM
>
> On 8/22/08, Lenard Lindstrom <len-l@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> That's right for SDL_ttf. What freetype version does Gentoo have. Pygame
>> 1.8 uses freetype-2.3.5 on Windows.
>>
>> Lenard
>>
>>
>> Charlie Nolan wrote:
>>> SDL_ttf is at 2.0.9 on Linux, and after digging a bit, the SDL_ttf.dll
>>> that came with pygame shows version 2.0.9.0.  Looks like a match to
>>> me.
>>>
>>> On 8/22/08, Brian Fisher <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It may be a difference between different versions of SDL_ttf or of
>>>> freetype,
>>>> which may not be a bug if the new er behavior is part of a bug fix.
>>>>
>>>> So what version of SDL_ttf do you have on Windows and on Linux?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Charlie Nolan
>>>> <funnyman3595@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I suspect this will just get passed upstream to SDL, but someone will
>>>>> need to translate for them.
>>>>>
>>>>> The "7" glyph in the attached font at size 21 behaves inconsistently
>>>>> on Windows (XP SP2) and Linux (Gentoo).  Running the test script on
>>>>> the two systems, I get these results:
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux:
>>>>> (11, 16)
>>>>> (12, 16)
>>>>>
>>>>> <Surface(22x16x32 SW)>
>>>>> <Surface(22x16x32 SW)>
>>>>>
>>>>> [(0, 9, 0, 8, 11), (0, 9, 0, 8, 11)]
>>>>> [(0, 9, 0, 8, 11), (-1, 9, 0, 8, 11)]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows:
>>>>> (11, 16)
>>>>> (12, 16)
>>>>>
>>>>> <Surface(22x16x32 SW)>
>>>>> <Surface(23x16x32 SW)>
>>>>>
>>>>> [(0, 10, 0, 8, 11), (0, 10, 0, 8, 11)]
>>>>> [(0, 10, 0, 8, 11), (0, 11, 0, 8, 12)]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My interpretation of this is that the 7 is behaving a bit screwy at
>>>>> that size.  It renders as 12x16, but has an X offset of -1, for an
>>>>> effective size of 11x16.  On Windows, the X offset appears to be lost,
>>>>> thus causing the glyph to incorrectly have an extra pixel of padding
>>>>> on the left.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm also puzzled as to why maxx is one larger on Windows, but that
>>>>> part doesn't seem to cause a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>