-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 82
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
issue with bdf files #1
Comments
Current output for the 9pt font:
|
I have fixed the fonts. New version of the bdf files are here: |
Thanks Olikraus. Using the scripts from u8g2_wqy but bdfconv & bdf from your u8g2 works. |
I also included all these font's into u8g2, so hopefully no extra effort is required. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Please excause opening an issue here, but I do not know where else to place my problem.
Background: I was asked to add the wqy directly into u8g2, based on your excellent work: olikraus/u8g2#455
As you already noted, bdfconv will fail with the fonts and you have patched bdfconv accordingly. The problem, however, is not simply solved by removing the assert statements. Instead the assert statements actually warn about an issue in the original bdf file.
Let me take the infinity sign from the 9pt font:
STARTCHAR U_221E
ENCODING 8734
SWIDTH 1000 0
DWIDTH 12 0
BBX 11 6 0 2
BITMAP
38E0
4510
8208
8208
4510
38E0
ENDCHAR
The problem is this: The BBX statement claims, that the glyph has a width of 11 pixel (first argument). However the bitmap later contains pixel in column 13: 8208. This means, the bitmap has an actual width of 13 which differs from the BBX specification.
Your fix in bdfconv has two consequences:
To solve the problem, just increase the first argument of the BBX statement. But probably there are multiple glyphs in all bdf files affected.
I do not know how to continue here. I have updated bdfconv to output a warning message together with the glyph encoding number (so that we know which glyph to fix).
So my suggesstion is to go through all bdf files and fix the faulty BBX statement.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: