[PATCH libXfont] Add a new 'catalogue' FPE, which takes font paths from symlinks in a dir.
gmane at colin.guthr.ie
Thu Jun 21 01:22:28 PDT 2007
Eamon Walsh wrote:
> Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>> Oh, and if nobody objects or suggests improvements within the next
>> couple of days, I'll commit it an cut a libXfont release. There,
>> you've been warned.
> From another mail:
> > + 75dpi:unscaled:pri=20 \-> /usr/share/X11/fonts/75dpi
> > + ghostscript:pri=60 \-> /usr/share/fonts/default/ghostscript
> > + misc:unscaled:pri=10 \-> /usr/share/X11/fonts/misc
> > + type1:pri=40 \-> /usr/share/X11/fonts/Type1
> > + type1:pri=50 \-> /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1
> What is the point of putting the font name (fixed, 75dpi, whatever) in
> the symlink name. It's evident from the symlink destination.
> If unscaled is the only option, why not simplify the symlink name to
> <priority>[unscaled], i.e.
> 20unscaled \-> /usr/share/X11/fonts/75dpi
> 60 \-> /usr/share/fonts/default/ghostscript
> 10unscaled \-> /usr/share/X11/fonts/misc
> 40 \-> /usr/share/X11/fonts/Type1
> 50 \-> /usr/share/fonts/default/Type1
> This would clean things up a lot.
Well what's to say two separate font-providing packages don't pick the
By putting the name in there, you are at least reducing the potential
for overlap and IMO it gives a quick glance look at the order and fonts
loaded without having to dereference all the symlinks (although I can't
fault your logic there!).
I was also a bit confused as to why priority wasn't listed first tho' -
would mean it could just be processed in alphabetical file order (unless
I've misread and pri is optional - I thought it was mandatory?)
More information about the xorg