Description: After upgrading to the 5.3 series, I found that the spacing between characters is slightly different than the 5.2 series and previous. This messes up the formatting of documents. I found the issue with Times New Roman, at least; it cannot be replicated with every font but there could be others. It is perhaps worth nothing that Liberation Serif (made to be metrically identical to Times New Roman) is identical in all versions of LibreOffice and uses the same space as Times New Roman in the 5.2 series and before, so the problem is with the 5.3 series. I'm using Ubuntu 16.04. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Make a document with Times New Roman as the font. 2. Open it in LibreOffice 5.3. 3. Compare its formatting and character spacing to LibreOffice 5.2. Actual Results: Because the spacing is slightly different, the page looks different than in older versions of LibreOffice, which can mess up formatting. Expected Results: The document should look identical across versions of LibreOffice. Reproducible: Always User Profile Reset: Additional Info: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:54.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/54.0
Created attachment 134168 [details] Example odt
Created attachment 134169 [details] Image of 5.2 formatting
Created attachment 134170 [details] Image of 5.3 formatting
Regression introduced by: author Khaled Hosny <khaledhosny@eglug.org> 2016-11-02 21:52:06 (GMT) committer Khaled Hosny <khaledhosny@eglug.org> 2016-11-03 00:17:06 (GMT) commit 8f2dd1df1d6cc94ebbc1149de72bc6d6dffa6533 (patch) tree db496889434c484a87b13ffcc4650d65e6672129 parent c8be45889217c555e4bec92af838d0524ceba4e0 (diff) Revert "Revert "Enable the new text layout engine by default"" This reverts commit 3950166877bf1308f9e449992e20b558342af825. Bisected with: bibisect-linux-64-5.3 Adding Cc: to Khaled Hosny
Do you have an up to date version of Times New Roman or the ancient one distributed by the “core fonts”? If the later, then this is a duplicate of bug 105992.
Ah, I didn't see that bug report. I have the usual "core fonts" one (didn't know there was another to use). *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 105992 ***