Re: Bitstream Vera fonts rpm (fontconfig vers

["Nicolas.Mailhot" <Nicolas Mailhot laPoste net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen Taylor" <otaylor redhat com>
To: "Nicolas Mailhot" <Nicolas Mailhot laPoste net>
Cc: <Jim Gettys hp com>; <fonts gnome org>; <michael fedrowitz de>;
<keithp keithp org>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: Bitstream Vera fonts rpm (fontconfig vers


> On Thu, 2003-04-17 at 16:43, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le jeu 17/04/2003 à 22:16, Jim Gettys hp com a écrit :
> > > Aaaarg!
> > >
> > > This seems pretty broken (or do you have an obsolte fontconfig
installed
> > > in /usr/local?).  I get 2.1.94 when I as the version number from
> > > either fc-list or fc-cache, that I installed earlier today from
Keith's
> > > latest tarball....
> >
> > [nim rousalka nim]$ fc-cache -V
> > fontconfig version 1.0.2
> > [nim rousalka nim]$ rpm -q fontconfig
> > fontconfig-2.1-9
> > [nim rousalka nim]$ rpm -V fontconfig
> > [nim rousalka nim]$ which fc-cache
> > /usr/bin/fc-cache
> > [nim rousalka nim]$ rpm -q --whatprovides /usr/bin/fc-cache
> > fontconfig-2.1-9
> >
> > That's :
> >
http://www.rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/redhat/9/i386/fontconfig-2.1-9.i386.html
> >
> > ie the official RH9 fontconfig (of course I could rebuild one from Keith
> > sources but what would be the point ? this is the version most RH users
> > will have for a long time)
> >
> > That is standard RH practice - build from one official version and then
> > add patches (often from upstream cvs) till it's stabilized enough. I
> > guess either they started from 1.0.2 or one of the included patches was
> > made for this version and replaced the real version number. No big deal
> > - they were among the first to offer me a fontconfiged setup and I won't
> > begrudge them a slightly erroneous version number.
> >
> > So either we put the -f inconditionally or just use fc-cache the way
> > it's supposed to work, considering most users won't hit the bug (and if
> > lots of them did that would be reason enough to have distros release an
> > errata)
> >
> > (cc-ing Owen Taylor since he seems to be RedHat's fonconfig maintainer)
>
> Insufficient context here. What's the problem you are trying to solve?

I've been looking into providing a clean spec file for vera fonts, so they
can be distributed in rpm form at the official site.
It appears there is a bug in fontconfig which makes fc-cache ureliable for
old fontconfig versions - you have to use fc-cache -f instead for
robustness.

Since I want to do a generic rpm fontconfig is not listed in requires. The
script look for fc-cache and execute it if present. There have been requests
to change the fc-cache command to fc-cache -f (and since the -f is expensive
add a test for fontconfig version via fc-cache -V).

Unfortunately the version returned by fc-cache -V packaged by RH seems to be
totally disconnected from fontconfig actual version as evidenced by this
simple test. Since you seem to be RH's fontconfig maintainer I CC'd you on
the remarks this test provoqued.

The full mail thread is archived at :
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/fonts/2003-April/msg00005.html

Cheers,

--
Nicolas Mailhot