LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 02-02-2014, 06:50 AM   #1
sanjioh
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 58

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
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
This is not true for 10-scale-bitmap-fonts.conf (provided by the fontconfig package):

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 final result is obviously the same, but I was curious about this exception, since it could reveal an unintended behaviour.
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 = \
        10-scale-bitmap-fonts.conf \
        20-unhint-small-vera.conf \
        30-urw-aliases.conf \
        30-metric-aliases.conf \
        40-nonlatin.conf \
        45-latin.conf \
        49-sansserif.conf \
        50-user.conf \
        51-local.conf \
        60-latin.conf \
        65-fonts-persian.conf \
        65-nonlatin.conf \
        69-unifont.conf \
        80-delicious.conf \
        90-synthetic.conf
Of course, if Pat's intention was instead to remove that specific link from the default list, the problem has to be addressed in a different way.

What do you think? I'll email Pat about this ASAP.

Bye!
 
Old 02-02-2014, 05:12 PM   #2
allend
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Melbourne
Distribution: Slackware-current
Posts: 3,464

Rep: Reputation: 852Reputation: 852Reputation: 852Reputation: 852Reputation: 852Reputation: 852Reputation: 852
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
 
Old 02-02-2014, 05:35 PM   #3
sanjioh
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 58

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
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.

Last edited by sanjioh; 02-02-2014 at 05:38 PM.
 
Old 02-02-2014, 05:50 PM   #4
allend
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2003
Location: Melbourne
Distribution: Slackware-current
Posts: 3,464

Rep: Reputation: 852Reputation: 852Reputation: 852Reputation: 852Reputation: 852Reputation: 852Reputation: 852
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.
 
Old 02-03-2014, 12:39 AM   #5
sanjioh
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 58

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Yes, that exactly summarizes what I meant
 
Old 02-05-2014, 04:09 PM   #6
sanjioh
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 58

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
sorry guys, does anybody else have a second opinion on this? thanks
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[SOLVED] Do I need both fontconfig and fontconfig-infinality? lionoceros Slackware 2 01-15-2014 11:58 AM
[SOLVED] rsync minor glitch centguy Linux - Software 3 05-21-2012 01:42 AM
fatal error: fontconfig/fontconfig.h: No such file or directory bogzab Slackware 3 11-07-2011 03:13 PM
Tomboy+KDE - Minor Glitch t1n0m3n Linux - Software 2 06-13-2007 01:38 PM
Another problem........fontconfig-2.2.2 / fontconfig-2.2.94 xonner Linux - Software 2 04-28-2004 10:13 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:29 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration