Comment 116 for bug 502610

Revision history for this message
In , Qianqian Fang (fangq) wrote :

<email address hidden> wrote:
> Sure. then my counter-proposal is to do that in your favorite distros. it's not
> something should be done upstream IMHO. I could start discussing this on
> another bug. but it's pretty opposite proposal to this, because once it gets
> approved, it eventually gets rid of your efforts too.
>

I don't think we can convince each other on this matter,
and unfortunately, the maintainers do not seem to care.
so, I am getting bored ...

> Right. because 65-nonlatin.conf prevents sane working on the separate config
> file idea. which means actually conflicting on it. otherwise we don't even need
> to get rid of it right.
>
>> it doesn't. just name your file with a priority less than 65.
>> if you name it bigger than 65, then use prepend_first in your rules.
>>
> Once starting to use prepend_first, and if one wants to modify the order over
> it, all of fonts eventually will depends on prepend_first. it's not the right
> solution. it's a kind of a hack.
>

looks like you just choose to ignore my first suggestion,
i.e. giving your own rules a lower prefix and overwrite 65-nonlatin.
As a result, your conclusion that 65-nonlatin conflicts with
per-font-config and your below criticism are flawed.

Just rename your own rules to 64-xxx and do a "FC_DEBUG=1029 fc-match ...",
you will see how it works.

> Not really. if we have simple rule for the font per a file, it should be easy
> to keep it on track with the debugging message, because any other changes for
> the font won't happens after that. having many rules in the different files
> would rather makes more complex to find out where it's really affected.
>

As I said, setting 65-nonlatin DOES NOT prevent you from doing
what you want to do as a distro packager. It is important to have
some sane default rules from fontconfig upstream because not all
distros (such as some mini-system derived from LSB) have knowledgeable
maintainers for CJK fonts.