Created attachment 140681 [details] Header of File->Open dialog Version: -------- Version: 6.0.2.1 Build ID: f7f06a8f319e4b62f9bc5095aa112a65d2f3ac89 CPU threads: 4; OS: Linux 4.13; UI render: default; VCL: gtk2; Locale: de-DE (en_US.UTF-8); Calc: group Problem: -------- 1) Open the file browser per menu "File -> Open" or Ctrl-O 2) The current folder is displayed in the header of the dialog 3) The label of the selected subfolder is not correctly displayed. Each character is represented by an empty rectangle (see attachment). LO 4.5.4.1 does not have this problem. Regards Tom
no repro Version: 6.1.0.0.alpha0+ Build ID: 070dbae6b4dc497d6ae898e60203d25b0e608d73 CPU threads: 8; OS: Linux 4.14; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3; Locale: nl-BE (en_US.UTF-8); Calc: group
So this is always the case for the current subfolder? Tried with gtk2, but not seeing it. What Linux distro are you using? What desktop environment is that? Can you reproduce with an appimage? https://www.libreoffice.org/download/appimage Set to NEEDINFO. Change back to UNCONFIRMED after you have provided the information.
ad 1) Yes, it is always the selected subfolder in the header of the dialog. So, in my screenshot example, if I click on "libreoffice6.0" that string gets replaced by 14 empty rectangles, while all the other elements of the path are correctly displayed ("opt" and "readmes"). If I click on "opt", that string gets replaced by 3 empty rectangles, while all other elements are correctly displayed (libreoffice6.0" and "readmes"). ad 2) I am running - Linux Mint 18.3 Mate - gtk+3 3.18.9-1ubuntu3.3 - gtk+2 2.24.30-1ubuntu1.16.04.2 From the lsof output while running LO 6.0.2.1, I conclude that gtk2 is used by LO 6.0.2.1. However, at the same time gtk3 is used by other software. ad 3) What appimage do you suggest to use? - Fresh, Still - Basic, Standard, Full Regards Tom
(In reply to Tom from comment #3) > ad 3) What appimage do you suggest to use? > - Fresh, Still > - Basic, Standard, Full Fresh.
Created attachment 140720 [details] appimage: Header of File->Open dialog OK, downloaded Fresh & Basic and ran it in a test account as well as my regular LO 6.0.2.1 installation. Here are the results: 1) LibreOffice-fresh.basic-x86_64.AppImage ------------------------------------------ % ./LibreOffice-fresh.basic-x86_64.AppImage Version: 6.0.2.1 Build ID: f7f06a8f319e4b62f9bc5095aa112a65d2f3ac89 CPU threads: 4; OS: Linux 4.13; UI render: default; VCL: gtk2; Locale: en-US (en_US.UTF-8); Calc: group The subfolder labels were all correctly displayed (see new screenshot). 2) Regular libreoffice 6.0.2.1 ------------------------------ % libreoffice6.0 (soffice:4772): Pango-WARNING **: failed to create cairo scaled font, expect ugly output. the offending font is 'Noto Sans Bold 9' (soffice:4772): Pango-WARNING **: font_face status is: file not found (soffice:4772): Pango-WARNING **: scaled_font status is: file not found (soffice:4772): Pango-WARNING **: shaping failure, expect ugly output. shape-engine='PangoFcShapeEngine', font='Noto Sans Bold 9', text='Documents' The error messages of the regular version seem to indicate a font issue, which would perfectly explain the empty rectangles. It would be tempting to assume that my fonts installation is corrupt. However, why does LO 5.4.5.1 not issue similar error messages? Regards Tom
(In reply to Tom from comment #5) > The error messages of the regular version seem to indicate a font issue, > which would perfectly explain the empty rectangles. It would be tempting to > assume that my fonts installation is corrupt. However, why does LO 5.4.5.1 > not issue similar error messages? Because Noto Sans was only added in 6.0 :) https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/6.0#Fonts
Hey Buovjaga, it may have been too early, to close this issue. My previous statement "It would be tempting to assume that my fonts installation is corrupt" does not mean, that my fonts installation is indeed corrupt. In fact, on my system "Noto Sans Bold" is already installed independent of LO 6.1.2.1 and this installation is working smoothly (see 1st new screenshot of LO 5.4.5.1 Writer). And, if I rename the "fonts" folder of LO 6.0.2.1 into "fonts.old", so that this folder is no longer found by LO 6.0.2.1, the problem of the illegible text is gone (see 2nd new screenshot of LO 6.0.2.1). So I think, there may be an incompatibility between the local fonts installation of LO 6.0.2.1 and already existing fonts on given Linux systems. I think it would be good, if this incompatibility would be addressed in LO. E.g. LO could first search for necessary fonts on the Linux system and only, if a font is not found, use the corresponding font from its local installation. Regards Tom
Created attachment 140754 [details] Noto Sans Bold 9 font used in LO 5.4.5.1 Writer
Created attachment 140755 [details] LO 6.0.2.1 File->Open dialog with renamed LO fonts folder
How have you installed version 6? From the Linux Mint package repository? I am not seeing the problem described (in Arch Linux), so it must be something special in the packaging or how you have installed it.
1) I do not install LO from the Linux Mint repository. Instead, I download the corresponding debian package and the corresponding off-line help package per: https://www.libreoffice.org/download/download/?type=deb-x86&version=6.0.2&lang=en-US 2) I unpack these packages as root, 3) I install them as written in the attached readme files, 4) I add/enable a few extensions as root for all user accounts on the system (alternative searching and German spell correction). As a result, I have the local fonts folder of LO installed in parallel to the different fonts folders of my system. I don't know, if the installation from a repository also comes with a local LO fonts folder. Maybe you can tell me, if it does? I never had problems with this procedure, until I installed LO 6. BTW: I have linked /opt to /usr/local/opt in order to have LO stored on the "local" partition. Regards Tom
I think it would be worth it to try the PPA from Ubuntu's LibreOffice team: sudo add-apt-repository ppa:libreoffice/ppa sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get -y dist-upgrade sudo apt-get install libreoffice This is the PPA: https://launchpad.net/~libreoffice/+archive/ubuntu/ppa
Created attachment 141196 [details] Fonts directory long listing I think I have found the root cause for the fonts problems reported earlier. I just installed LO 6.0.3.2 per DEB package as I usually do. After the installation, I typically run libreoffice as root in order to install extensions for all users. As root I also checked for the existence of the fonts issue and was surprised not to find any fonts problems. So, I checked as a normal user afterwards and was disappointed to find the fonts problem still exists. However, the different behavior of LO6 run as root and as normal user caused me to check the permissions in the directory /opt/libreoffice6.0/share/fonts/truetype. The results are listed in the new attachment. Long story short, unfortunately many permissions are incorrectly set. E.g. -rw-r----- 1 root root 455164 Mar 29 23:16 NotoSans-Bold.ttf It is no surprise that an ordinary user encounters problems with the new Noto fonts, when an ordinary user does not have read access for these fonts. After I had corrected all fonts permissions manually to become 644, the font in the file open dialog is now correctly displayed. Please have the permissions of all fonts files (and the entire DEB packages) checked and corrected for future releases. Thanks Tom
I suspect this is a duplicate of bug 115396.
The protection is wrong already in the tarball on https://dev-www.libreoffice.org/src/noto-fonts-20170306.tar.gz -rw-r----- 0 jay18 jay18 379600 Mar 15 2016 noto-fonts-20170306/NotoSerif-Regular.ttf etc. Somebody should fix that, instead of having us come up with various fixes for fallout here and there. (There already was at least one, for the sandboxed macOS build, 155086493c9e035c0568868f5ae3b3dcf3299e6f )
I mistakenly set to NEW. Duping to bug 115396 *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 115396 ***