Created attachment 88341 [details] screenshot of the same document, opened with LO 4.0.6 (above) and 4.1.2.3 (below) Problem description: Using a non-standard font (Futura LT Light), LO Writer is unable to show text in bold letters correctly. Futua LT Light in regular style is shown correctly. This problem only occured since the upgrade to LO 4.1. happens with all documents using this font. Steps to reproduce: 1. .... 2. .... 3. .... Current behavior: Expected behavior: Operating System: Mac OS X Version: 4.1.2.3 release
(In reply to comment #0) > screenshot of the same document, opened with LO 4.0.6 (above) and 4.1.2.3 > (below) Hi, After reading the bug description, I think that you mean LO 4.0.6 (*below*) and 4.1.2.3 (*above*), right?
yes, that's correct. sorry for causing confusion. On 30.10.2013, at 12:26, bugzilla-daemon@freedesktop.org wrote: > > Comment # 1 on bug 71034 from Maxim > (In reply to comment #0) > > screenshot of the same document, opened with LO 4.0.6 (above) and 4.1.2.3 > > (below) > Hi, > After reading the bug description, I think that you mean LO 4.0.6 (*below*) and > 4.1.2.3 (*above*), right? > > You are receiving this mail because: > You reported the bug.
please attach the original .odt file as well so we can test
*** Bug 71636 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Confirmed by Bug 71636.
Where is that font? Is it possible to attach it to this bug? I don’t have it on my 10.9 OS X system.
It is a proprietary font: https://www.adobe.com/type/browser/html/readmes/FuturaStdReadMe.html One possible download location: http://fontpark.net/en/font/futura-std-light/
Hi Seppel, I see: http://cl.ly/image/3R2u3f2D043F in Macintosh HD > Library > Fonts Do you have all those entries as well? If you have bold, you should then be able to set your font to bold. Please open your OSX font manager (ger "schriftenverwaltung") and check if you see any entry for bold. Why is this bug on NEW? So far it has not been confirmed, so unconfirmed is the correct status. Setting to NEEDINFO since we need feedback from bug reporter.
Hi actually the font we use is "futura LT light", not "Futura Std". That might be a difference, I don't know exactly. And no - there's no "Futua LT Light Bold" on the system - well, maybe the "light" in the name and "bold" wouldn't fit too well to each other.... But the font can be shown in *bold*, but I think it is a kind of "calculated" by LO.. and in version 4.1.2.3 it is showing the distance between two letters wrong.
We use "FuturaStd-Light" shown as "FuturaStd-Light.otf" in the Fontmanager. Same Problem (#71636);
*** Bug 76352 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
This should not be in NEEDINFO, or do triagers need to pirate every font just to confirm smething?
(In reply to comment #9) > ... in version 4.1.2.3 it is showing the distance > between two letters wrong. have you tried if the issues persist in more recent releases like 4.1.5 or 4.2.2?
sorry, I've just noticed that the duplicate Bug 76352 was already tested against 4.1.5 and 4.2.2 and confirms that the issue was not present in 4.0.6 I add "regression" to keywords
Indeed, in the duplicate I reported that I observe the same problem with a standard Apple font, Geneva, and with a free font, Gentium[1], and. So no need to download a proprietary font. Copying a remark from the other report: I've found an old discussion about a similar problem with Geneva bold, and it was related to the fact that Carbon automatically created a pesudo-bold font, while Cocoa no longer does this: http://typophile.com/node/59767 Most probably the new way LO uses to emulate a bold font where only a regular version exists is not as good as the old one. 1: http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/render_download.php?format=file&media_id=GentiumPlus-1.510.zip&filename=GentiumPlus-1.510.zip
*** Bug 76590 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Bug is still present on 4.2.3. AppleGothic (Mac system font) bolded is nearly unusable. This bug breaks a lot of existing documents.
*** Bug 71249 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 69881 ***
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 69254 ***
This is not a duplicate of 69254.
*** Bug 84088 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
QA housekeeping, setting back to NEW -- apparently valid, but never taken by a Dev.
Use of freedesktop.org services, including Bugzilla, is subject to our Code of Conduct. How we collect and use information is described in our Privacy Policy.