[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Fair enough.

On 13-02-06 05:24 AM, Akira TAGOH wrote:
> Yes, you're right. I'm trying to address that issue in next release as far as
> possible though, bumping the cache version quickly isn't also a good idea. the
> value in FC_POSTSCRIPT_NAME itself will not be changed once it's available. so
> it's not that bad thing to do that this time, without even the match part in
> the worst case anyway...
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Behdad Esfahbod <behdad@xxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:behdad@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>     On 02/05/2013 03:57 AM, Akira TAGOH wrote:
>     > Hi,
>     >
>     > In next release, some new objects will be added to the cache and planning to
>     > bump the cache version due to that. as I posted before, regarding to this, I
>     > have one more plan to add new object, FC_POSTSCRIPT_NAME (too long?)
>     into the
>     > cache. it may be a good time to do so during this breakage. that said, I
>     > haven't yet addressed all of issues around it. so I won't update the matcher
>     > this time because not giving any effects to the score.
>     >
>     > any comments?
>     Ideally matching on POSTSCRIPT_NAME is what PDF viewers want ,so it would be
>     rather useless without the match part.
>     --
>     behdad
> -- 
> Akira TAGOH

Fontconfig mailing list

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Fonts]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Kernel]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Gimp Graphics Editor]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux