On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 08:48 -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Sunday, November 06, 2005 8:28 am, Mike A. Harris wrote: > > I believe Owen, or whoever set up our default fonts.conf > > configuration, intentionally selected only the above specific > > /usr/X11R6 font directories, in order to pick up the scaleable Type1 > > and OTF fonts that come with X, intentionally excluding all of the > > ugly bitmap fonts and other weirdo fonts from being seen by > > fontconfig. > > But don't you *want* to see all your fonts? I.e. if you chose to > install xorg-ugly-fonts, you don't want them mysteriously missing from > your font listings, do you? > > I think as long as the ugly fonts are in separate packages, putting them > all in /usr/share/fonts will be ok based on the principle of least > surprise (though you bring up a good point that this is a change in > behavior wrt current FC). I think there is a general principle that installing extra packages shouldn't break things ... other than cluttering up your menus or lists of fonts. But if the -adobe-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* bitmaps get into your font path, things break. Fontconfig (correctly) thinks that these are official versions of Times Roman, Helvetica, etc, and thus prefers them to the URW clones. It has no real way of knowing that they are ugly bitmap official versions. Regards, Owen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
