© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
f33e652
(Get the code!)
(In reply to comment #34)
> I would argue that by the time that Firefox want so ship with pangocairo, FC5
> is not such a huge requirement. Earlier Fedora versions don't have cairo
> either afterall. I know mozilla currently has its own cairo copy, but isn't
> the plan to remove that and use upstream when all the patches are merged
> (almost there)?
>
afaik, the plan is for us to ship our own version of cairo with our builds. What upstream distributors do is up to them and the Firefox trademark guidelines.
> ... ligature stuff ...
While having support for ligatures from pango would be nice, we simply can't take a 500% slowdown for them. We want to special case any non-complex text to avoid pango entirely because it is so slow for so little gains. The slowness is pango_shape and pango_itemize. I realize these certainly aren't the easiest functions to optimize, but they are where the performance problems live. I don't want to speculate how to fix them as I haven't looked at the code in a long long time and haven't looked at recent performance profiles.
> ... pangocairo vs pango+xft stuff ...
The pangocairo vs pango+xft argument should really go in a seperate bug. As far as I know it has no real performance implications. We'll move to using pangocairo once at least our developers have machines that have pangocairo installed on them which wasn't the case when we stopped using pangocairo. I would like to see distributors ship updated pango versions to their older releases so that we can use pangocairo on them. Dropping some % (not going to speculate on numbers here) of potential linux users for something we can work around seems silly, even if pangocairo is clearly what we want.