possible (minor) glitch in fontconfig SlackBuild (14.1)
Hi everybody,
I think I've found an issue in fontconfig's SlackBuild. Looking inside /etc/fonts/conf.d (after a fresh install) I've noticed that every link's target is something in '../conf.avail', es.: Code:
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 30 Feb 1 19:32 40-nonlatin.conf -> ../conf.avail/40-nonlatin.conf Code:
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 48 Feb 1 19:32 10-scale-bitmap-fonts.conf -> /etc/fonts/conf.avail/10-scale-bitmap-fonts.conf The cause of this difference seems to be the fact that this specific link is not managed by the SlackBuild (see section with the comment: 'Set up the default options in /etc/fonts/conf.d:'). In fact, fontconfig's Makefile deals with the creation of these links itself (at compilation time); then the SlackBuild re-creates the links using the '../conf.avail' format. This happens for every link except that specific one. The full list (taken from fontconfig's sources, specificly from conf.d/Makefile.am) should be: Code:
CONF_LINKS = \ What do you think? I'll email Pat about this ASAP. Bye! |
Steady little grasshopper.
The 10-scale-bitmap-fonts.conf should not be symlinked in /etc/fonts/conf.d by default. It is an example of a rendering default that needs to be set for each specific system. Have a look at the README in /etc/fonts/conf.d/ and for much more detailed info see https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php..._configuration |
That file is part of fontconfig's default settings since version 2.10.91 (see: http://www.freedesktop.org/software/...ngeLog-2.10.91 , commit dc11dd581f228623f0f14b3a6a1e4beaa659266b).
It's just included by default by the Makefile, who creates the proper link between conf.d and conf.avail. It's not managed by the slackbuild, so the link has a different target format (but with the same meaning). However it's right there after a fresh install of the fontconfig package. |
OK -Thanks for the clarification. I get the point now. An upstream commit is now making a new default that is not specifically handled by the current Slackbuild.
|
Yes, that exactly summarizes what I meant :)
|
sorry guys, does anybody else have a second opinion on this? thanks :)
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:27 AM. |