Hi, On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Michael Henning <drawoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > As much fun as I'm sure you're all having debugging this, I think I've > seen this before. I already fixed this with my windows nightlies > (actually, scl reported it, so I guess he forgot about that). > > There are two potential issues: > 1. fontconfig includes an absolute path to its config directory, so > when you move the files to a windows system it cannot find them. > > 2. The config files themselves are symlinks, which may cause them to > not exist on windows, depending on how the files are packaged. > > The solutions: > 1. Modify etc/fonts/fonts.conf to remove the absolute path and > replace it with a relative one (it should just say "conf.d", not > long/path/and/then/conf.d). I compile fontconfig with this patch: > https://git.gnome.org/browse/gimp/tree/build/windows/jhbuild/patches/fontconfig-fix-config-dir.patch > You can achieve the same effect by modifying the config files by hand. > > 2. Ensure the files in etc/fonts/conf.d/ exist. If not, copy the > files from share/fontconfig/conf.avail into that folder. Sorry for the late reply. I wanted to test myself first to be sure it fixed the issue. And it does. I just tested on my master build. :-) So that's indeed the problem and its solution. > At the time I fixed this, Jernej's builds did not exhibit the problem > because they used an older version of fontconfig. I did not report > this upstream because it's a configuration issue, but now that I think > about it, the defaults should perhaps be changed on windows (or maybe > when cross compiling). Yes I am not sure if upstream or else, but definitely somethings should be done *somewhere*, otherwise we might have various new developers to the team (or the same ones, forgetting it happened already) scratching their head with this problem every 6 months. The simple fact that the last Windows build is broken even though you had this fixed from before this release is a sign there should be something in place for this to not happen again. :-) Thanks! Jehan > On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Jehan Pagès <jehan.marmottard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 12:49 AM, Sven Claussner <scl.gplus@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 22.09.2013 at 12:32 P.M., Jehan Pagès wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Sven, but that does not say what versions are used on GIMP >>>> 2.8.4, official build, which was my question. :-) >>> >>> >>> Sorry for being a bit terse, I'm in a rush ;-) >>> >>> You can find the official 2.8.4 build at >>> >>> http://sourceforge.net/projects/gimp-win/files/GIMP%20%2B%20GTK%2B%20%28stable%20release%29/GIMP%202.8.4/ >>> >>> Running GIMP with the -v or --version parameter shows the versions >>> of the used libraries. >>> >> >> Oh thanks, I did not know this one! Jernej actually already sent me an >> archive with the dependency tree of his build. I was planning to check >> the .pc files. Fortunately I did not start. And your solution will be >> easier *and* more accurate. :-) >> >>> You can also find the 2.8.4 sources at the Web-Git site: >>> https://git.gnome.org/browse/gimp >> >> Yes the source, I already have them, no problem. :-) >> Thanks again. >> >> Jehan >> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Sven >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> gimp-developer-list mailing list >> List address: gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx >> List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list List address: gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
