Comment 89 for bug 521163

<email address hidden> wrote:
> http://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20911
>
> --- Comment #78 from Nicolas Mailhot <email address hidden> 2009-12-02 14:09:01 PST ---
> Created an attachment (id=31684)
> --> (http://bugs.freedesktop.org/attachment.cgi?id=31684)
> split fontconfig files
>
> Here is a conter-proposal with the fontconfig files properly split per font (ie
> I want a setup that any individual packager can trivially copy when he needs to
> package a new cjk font, not something that lefts him scratching his head and
> feel he'll go nowhere without going through the fontconfig packager)
>

I truly don't understand why this has to be done in a per-font format.
Why Latin fonts can be listed in a preferred list in 60-latin.conf, but
CJK fonts can not?

The split files only increase the maintenance complexity, reduce
the readability and gain very little (if there is any).

If you don't like what was proposed in the svn, please give me one
solid example to show it is problematic.

> Also provided are the scripts used to generate them from an easily changed csv
> file
>
> I intentionnaly didn't touch the proposed CJK stacks, though I feel it is
> highly abusive to registed the same font in multiple generics. We have lots of
> latin fonts that could be classified in multiple generics (trivial example:
> DehaVu Sans Mono), we don't put them everywhere anyway
>

but what's wrong to have a longer list of fallback fonts? I just don't
want fontconfig to randomly pickup one from other CJK fonts that we
know it is not appropriate, or don't display at all.

The scheme makes this setup robust because 1) we give plenty of
choices, and 2) we ranked them from good to bad for each category.
Even the best font is not installed, we can still get the next-best choice,
and so on. This is exactly what we ask for: give CJK people the
best your system can provide out-of-box.