F11 for XO1 - Fonts

[Yioryos Asprobounitis]

--- On Mon, 8/3/09, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu at sugarlabs.org> wrote:

> From: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu at sugarlabs.org>
> Subject: Re: F11 for XO1 - Fonts
> To: "Yioryos Asprobounitis" <mavrothal at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Daniel Drake" <dsd at laptop.org>, fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com
> Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 8:16 AM
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 12:46, Yioryos
> Asprobounitis<mavrothal at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Mon, 8/3/09, Daniel Drake <dsd at laptop.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> From: Daniel Drake <dsd at laptop.org>
> >> Subject: Re: F11 for XO1 - Fonts
> >> To: "Tomeu Vizoso" <tomeu at sugarlabs.org>
> >> Cc: "Yioryos Asprobounitis" <mavrothal at yahoo.com>,
> fedora-olpc-list at redhat.com
> >> Date: Monday, August 3, 2009, 6:17 AM
> >> 2009/8/3 Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu at sugarlabs.org>:
> >> > It's not really hardcoded in the journal, it
> uses the
> >> default Sugar
> >> > font that happens to be 10.
> >>
> >> On the XO the default is changed to 7, so it seems
> like
> >> there's a bug
> >> somewhere. Yioryos, perhaps you could file that
> ticket?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Daniel
> >>
> >
> > I did.
> > But I can see a pattern I was afraid of.
> > OLPC devs will say is a Sugar issue and SugarLabs devs
> that is an OLPC_specific-build issue...
> 
> Different people working on different software components
> means that
> some effort is needed to work together.

The people?... :-)

> 
> > Just someone tell me what the damn relevant files
> might be and I'll see if I can wrestle with them.
> 
> With the information I have, it could be in lots of files.
> Will try to
> find time to give it a look soon.
> 
> Thanks,

Thank you. Ticket number is #1125

> 
> Tomeu
> 
> >
> >
> >
>