[Fontconfig] Re: Luxi Mono

Keith Packard keithp at keithp.com
Fri Nov 3 08:17:32 PST 2006

On Fri, 2006-11-03 at 09:33 -0500, Bob Tennent wrote:

> Is the lack of "spacing=100" for Bold [Oblique] significant?  If so, why
> are Bold [Oblique] not properly tagged?

The lack of the spacing values is significant; this value is determined
by examining the font and checking the spacing of each glyph; fonts
where glyphs have different spacing values will not be marked as
monospace <pedant>yes, the code detects dual-spacing fonts as

In particular, I found Type1 variants of the Luxi fonts on my machine
for which even the Roman style face is not marked as monospace.

Using fontconfig 2.4.1, you could override this by editing the spacing
value detected in the font with the configuration file.

keith.packard at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/fontconfig/attachments/20061103/cdfd19ff/attachment.pgp

More information about the Fontconfig mailing list