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 > http://behdad.org/ > > > > > -- > Akira TAGOH -- behdad http://behdad.org/ _______________________________________________ Fontconfig mailing list Fontconfig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/fontconfig
