Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=228804
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Version|11 |rawhide
Summary|[All lang] [firefox] - Face |[CJK] different fonts used
|of the number is changing |for Latin and Common chars
|when enter number + Char, |
|in any Locale |
--- Comment #13 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2009-10-23 01:23:22 EDT ---
firefox-3.5 in current f12 rawhide looks ok to me.
But the general pango issue is still unchanged I think.
(In reply to comment #3)
> What's the rationale for such a change? Common characters are common to all
> scripts. They are not Latin. If I write in Persian, I want common characters
> chosen from my Persian font, not Latin font.
It is different for CJK - they have their own wide punctuation
and number glyphs. For CJK COMMON and LATIN glyphs should be
rendered in the same font.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=228983
Tim Waugh <twaugh(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED
Resolution| |WONTFIX
--- Comment #6 from Tim Waugh <twaugh(a)redhat.com> 2009-10-22 11:24:31 EDT ---
No real point in doing this. If gutenprint knows about the printer, it's most
likely a better option to use the native gutenprint driver than foomatic
anyway.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=322861
Matej Cepl <mcepl(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks|432388(fedora-x-target) |
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456393
Summary: RFE: version of pgf in texlive is old
Product: Fedora
Version: 9
Platform: All
URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/pgf/
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: low
Component: texlive-texmf
AssignedTo: jnovy(a)redhat.com
ReportedBy: uckelman(a)nomic.net
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: andreas.bierfert(a)lowlatency.de,fedora-triage-
list@redhat.com,pertusus@free.fr
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #219146 +++
Description of problem:
Version 1.10 of pgf is packaged with texlive; the current version of pgf (2.0)
is two years newer and has far more features.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
texlive-texmf-2007-22.fc9.noarch
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=124246
--- Comment #53 from Eric Paris <eparis(a)redhat.com> 2009-10-21 13:59:13 EDT ---
comment #32 and comment #37 together show the problem with a btrfs root. These
have been pasted in the new clean bug 530108 which I think would be the best
place to get grubby (or btrfs) fixed....
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=124246
--- Comment #52 from Tomasz Torcz <zdzichu(a)irc.pl> 2009-10-21 12:42:55 EDT ---
I am using ext3 /boot and btrfs /. Anyway, F12 GRUB supports btrfs IIRC.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=124246
--- Comment #51 from Jason Farrell <farrellj(a)gmail.com> 2009-10-21 12:03:48 EDT ---
Yes. A completely default install, save for a btrfs root.
I opened bug 530108 to replace this old (closed) bug.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=124246
--- Comment #50 from Eric Sandeen <esandeen(a)redhat.com> 2009-10-21 11:58:13 EDT ---
I assume you have a supported fs for /boot on the btrfs install, and not btrfs?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=246945
--- Comment #4 from Andreas Thienemann <andreas(a)bawue.net> 2009-10-21 05:55:29 EDT ---
Better late than never...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.