Comment 125 for bug 502610

Revision history for this message
In , Akiro (akiro) wrote :

I won't add any comments later. I'm not interested in the improvements of 65-nonlatin.conf anymore and now we have a solution to avoid the bad effects of it. but to correct the misunderstanding of:

(In reply to comment #107)
> <email address hidden> wrote:
> >> then I guess you want to look at this
> >> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/fontconfig/tree/conf.d/README
> >>
> >
> > And then? can you talk more? how does it explain why growing the range of the
> > numbering for the priority order is a Fedora matter?
> >
> > You understand Fedora's priority thing is based on that right?
> >
>
> I should have completed my sentence. What I wanted you to do
> is to compare
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/fontconfig/tree/conf.d/README
> with
> http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/fontpackages.git?p=fontpackages.git;a=blob;f=fontconfig-templates/fontconfig-priorities.txt
>
> the first one is what suggested in fontconfig, and the second
> one is what suggested in Fedora. see the difference?
>
> the limitation that non-latin shall not go below 65 is
> only a Fedora limitation. As long as you match lang tag as
> the enclosing block in your config file, I don't think it
> matters which number you choose for Latin or non-latin
> fonts if 50<n<65.

That looks like you are talking about different point. indeed I said 65-nonlatin.conf badly affects to the separate-config idea though, my proposal posted at Comment #101 isn't for Fedora. otherwise I won't submit it here. the documented structure of the priority numbering is a good idea and inheriting this idea in Fedora is also good IMHO, but the assignment in Fedora was bad you are misunderstanding the point. since this kind of the configuration is completely preference and should be capable to customize it in various area such as at the user-side and at the distro-side, the scope of the customization should be defined in upstream. having more improvements than current policy in Fedora may works after that, but it may introduces the inconsistencies and another side-effects. that's not a solution but still a hack.
that's why I want to see the reserved area for distro and so on in upstream definition of the priority numbering, but anyway.

I'll keep an eye on another bug how it could improve.